Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

EMU (Economic Convergence)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]

Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to present this Adjournment debate. It was very clear from the Prime Minister's statement on the euro last week that we are moving into new terrain in the debate on Europe. The pace is accelerating, and I think that it is important that as many hon. Members as possible are able to contribute to the argument.

Mr. Eric Forth: There are not many here today.

Dr. Cable: Perhaps 9.30 am is a little early for some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues—and maybe for some of mine, too.
In the past week, we have identified several areas of concern about where the new Government process is leading. Some of us have talked to our local business communities—I spoke yesterday to my local chamber of commerce—and I think that the reaction to the changeover plan in general has been rather positive. However, there are questions about what that plan will mean.
There is a new formula in terms of the months involved in the changeover—the X + 4 + 30 + 6, as I think we must learn to call it. The question is what is X: how long will it be before the changeover process begins? As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that that period should be as short as possible because of the need for an early political mandate.

Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A minute ago, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned as an aside that 9.30 am is a bit early for our colleagues to attend the Chamber. As that remark will go into the Official Report, I should also point out that the number of Conservatives in the Chamber exceeds the combined number of hon. Members from all other parties.

Madam Speaker: I am really not into the numbers game. There are sufficient hon. Members present to carry on the debate.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We should also place on record that that is the first time that that has happened this Parliament.

Madam Speaker: At least I am always here.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are always

anxious for the factual record to be correct, so it should be placed on record that, during consideration of the treaty of Amsterdam in Committee, the Conservative presence—as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) well knows—was invariably greater than that of Labour.

Madam Speaker: I can see that many hon. Members have a good sense of humour. We are starting the day very well.

Dr. Cable: Conservative Members have made their point about the quantity of Conservative participation in the debate, so I hope that that will be matched by the quality of their speeches—judging from experience, I rather doubt it.
My second introductory point relates to the concern expressed by business about how precisely the changeover plan will work given uncertainty about the lead-in time. However, an even bigger issue has begun to be raised in some of the testimony to the Treasury Select Committee in the past week. As the Government have moved ahead with their business preparations, the macroeconomics underlying the Government's approach to entry have been left behind.
I refer the House to the comments of two witnesses who appeared before the Committee. The Governor of the Bank of England acknowledged openly that there was a potentially serious conflict between his goals, as currently defined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in pursuing domestic inflation objectives and those that he would have to pursue if he were seeking economic convergence. He made it clear that, until he received a fresh mandate from the Treasury, he could not begin to address that problem.
It was also clear from his testimony yesterday that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, had great difficulty defining what a future competitive exchange rate would be when we join EMU. That is also a great concern to much of manufacturing industry. Major areas of economic policy have not yet caught up with the speed of the Government's actions in terms of business preparation. I shall try to focus on some of those issues in this debate.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the vehicle for joining EMU that the Government have set in motion may have a gearbox but it also needs a steering wheel. It is all very well to say that we must achieve economic convergence, but the Government must make it clear how economic convergence will be achieved and sustained. Today, I shall offer a series of specific and pragmatic proposals as to how the Government might take that aim forward.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Is there not a strange dichotomy in this situation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not allowed to interfere with the independence of the Bank of England, and the euroland nations are not entitled to interfere with the central bank. However, our Chancellor is able to speak to the governor of the central bank and suggest that he should increase interest rates in euroland because the bank is currently effecting competitive devaluation of the euro for short-term gains in Europe.

Dr. Cable: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I believe that the model of independence that


has developed in the United Kingdom is very satisfactory. I think that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were bitterly critical of that structure when it was introduced a year ago.
I shall address the point for which the hon. Gentleman provided a cue. The first issue that we need to deal with is the extent to which the position of the Bank of England might now need to be changed. I start from the assumption—Liberal Democrat Members strongly believe this, as I am sure do Government Members, and perhaps we even have a convert on the Conservative Benches—that the Bank of England's independence is desirable and its creation was a valuable step forward.
Despite many reservations among Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches and Labour Back Benches, many of the fears about that independence have not been realised. It is difficult to believe, for example, that a politically inspired series of interest rate cuts by the Bank of England over five months would have been accepted by the markets. The experiment has been extremely successful so far and we are anxious that the spirit of independence should be retained whatever changes to arrangements take place.
It is clear, however, that the Bank of England now faces the dilemma of how to take into account European convergence. The Bank's terms of reference now state that the objectives of the Monetary Police Committee are to consider inflation and other Government objectives, but the Bank is making it clear that those objectives do not, at this stage, include European convergence. There is a large blind spot about how to address that issue.
I have a modest suggestion for the Economic Secretary, which involves a series of steps that the Government might now begin to take. When the Chancellor introduces the Budget next week, he should modify the terms of reference within which the Monetary Policy Committee operates and instruct it to take convergence into account. That does not necessarily mean immediately shadowing an exchange rate or any other objective, but the committee should monitor economic convergence and begin to discuss the problem with other relevant Departments, especially the Minister's own.
It is important that the Bank of England's independence is maintained in that process, but at some point we must confront the dilemma that the objectives of convergence may well involve moving interest rates in the opposite direction from that of domestic inflation. Over the next few months, for example, the objective of convergence might best be achieved by cutting interest rates to bring down the pound. On the other hand, a recovery in the United Kingdom economy may require interest rates to go up. That dilemma must be resolved, and it can be done only by using the Treasury's fiscal policy.
A careful process must evolve whereby monetary and fiscal policy can be considered together without compromising the Bank's independence. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and suggest how she and the Government expect the process to work. It is difficult to believe that it can simply be left until the next Parliament, so we suggest that the process may be set in train whereby the terms of reference of the Governor of the Bank of England are modified to allow him to begin to take convergence into account.
The second issue on which I want to focus—the role of sterling and the exchange rate—is potentially much more difficult, but it must be addressed.

Jacqui Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his suggestion that the only way in which to achieve convergence criteria is directly to target them is contrary to what was discussed in the Select Committee yesterday and to the clear statement from Lord Simon that the Government's current policies on the Bank of England's independence and long-term fiscal stability are precisely those that should lead to convergence? Does not he accept that it is not necessary to have a strict objective of convergence, but that it is important that we put into place the policies that will achieve that aim?

Dr. Cable: The hon. Lady has helpfully put her finger on the underlying fallacy in what the Government are trying to achieve, which helps me to make my point more strongly. I understand current Government policy to involve, as she says, pursuing a series of objectives which will hopefully land us at precisely the right exchange rate when it is politically convenient to enter EMU.
Theory and practice do not add up. It has been clear in the past few months, and for a much longer period before that, that foreign exchange markets do not work as the Government believe them to work. Government policy holds that, providing that interest rates are gradually cut to European levels over the next few years, the British exchange rate with the euro will gradually glide down to a convenient rate, but we know that foreign exchange markets do not work in that way. The Governor of the Bank of England admitted that last week, when he said that he was perplexed about what was happening to the exchange rate and did not understand the mechanism. That was a confession not of incompetence but of a lack of understanding.

Mr. David Ruffley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Liberal Democrats have an exchange rate objective, and if not, why not?

Dr. Cable: Yes, I shall suggest how we might pursue an exchange rate objective, and that is the purpose of this part of my speech. I shall suggest not that we should pursue a single interest rate, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman wants me to say, but that we need a policy commitment on the exchange rate. He is right to imply that there is a basic point of logic in this matter, and I shall try to suggest how that objective might usefully be pursued.
The problem remains—this reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith)—that the Government are hoping that interest rate cuts will gradually glide to a level that will enable British manufacturers to be competitive indefinitely, but we know from the workings of foreign exchange markets that that simply does not happen. There is a danger that, without a more proactive policy, we shall be landed with an exchange rate that is totally uncompetitive and inappropriate.
In those circumstances, the Government may well have fulfilled all their five tests and have the political mandate from a referendum, but we would have the wrong exchange rate. One lesson that we should have learned


from the period of the exchange rate mechanism—our analysis of that corresponds with the views of some Conservative sceptics—is that if we are entering such a project, the exchange rate must be right.
How do we then resolve the problem—I am responding to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley)—of having an exchange rate objective? It cannot be done simply be sticking one's finger in the air, picking up an exchange rate and saying that it will be appropriate for ever. That would be absurd, and I do not begin to suggest it. However, we must do more than take the totally passive approach adopted by the Government.
There are two elements to the issue. First, the Government must widen their imagination and think in terms of broad bands, within which the exchange rate can fluctuate, rather than single points. We remember that in the old ERM, there was potential for fluctuation by 15 per cent., which gave a good deal more freedom of manoeuvre than the previous Government allowed themselves. Bands would make the problem of fluctuation more manageable.
The second step that the Government could take—they could do so now—would be to begin consultation with industry, academics and politicians of different parties to try to establish what would be a comfortable, sustainable competitive exchange rate or range of rates. Within this Parliament, there has been one example of the Government dealing rather neatly with such an economic problem, when they had the task of fixing a minimum wage. That is interference in the market and could have gone badly wrong, but the Government took soundings, did economic analysis and came up with a recommendation that was detached from them but which they could none the less adopt.
I suggest that the Government should now initiate consultation and reports on relative prices, technical measures, purchasing power parity and a sustainable exchange rate, about which there are many studies. They could then come up with a recommendation for an appropriate level or range of exchange rates. That would have several advantages. It might, for example, influence the market, although we do not know that. It would certainly be very reassuring to British industry, which would know that the Government were seriously concerned about the stability and competitiveness of the exchange rate and were not leaving it to pure chance. Most important, it would provide the Government with some political ammunition—when we eventually have to set the exchange rate within EMU, it will be a political process decided partly by the level that other members of the European Union think appropriate. We would be seen to have undertaken a proper scientific exercise, looking carefully at what exchange rate range was appropriate for the UK. That is the kind of early process that the Government could helpfully set in train. It would involve not setting a fixed objective but setting in train a process of creative thinking about the problem.

Mr. Forth: Has the hon. Gentleman thought what the result of that process might be? Let us suppose that the process took place and that there were agreement on the ideal exchange rate from the UK's point of view, if we were ever stupid enough to adopt the euro. Would not that signal to our partners what our negotiating position would be? What does the hon. Gentleman think would be

the reaction if our partners did not allow us to join at anything like that rate but insisted on one that could damage the UK's interests?

Dr. Cable: The second point is the crucial one. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's problems with it. Surely it is right that the British should signal in advance what we perceive our national interest to be. In the case of the exchange rate, it is not an uncompetitive one such as we have had in recent months; nor is it one that is provocatively cheap, which would trigger domestic inflation. It seems perfectly right that we should be transparent about this.
I am also effectively suggesting—it may be surprising to hear this from a Liberal Democrat—another test of convergence. That test should be the exchange rate. We believe strongly that EMU would benefit Britain but, equally, we believe that it should be done the right way and at the right exchange rate. It would be disastrous to enter in the wrong way and at the wrong exchange rate. I am suggesting a hurdle, or test, which the Government have not yet set themselves but which they should satisfy. If that were done, there would be a much greater prospect of our meeting our negotiating objectives in Europe and of our carrying British public opinion, especially industrial opinion, with us. I am therefore suggesting another test that the process of convergence would have to meet, and I am not inhibited in doing so.

Mr. Ruffley: Does that mean that the Liberal Democrat party is advocating shadowing the euro?

Dr. Cable: No, I am not suggesting that we shadow the euro. I did not mention shadowing the euro, and the Government have ruled it out. I am suggesting that we establish a process to define explicitly what an appropriate band of exchange rates would be when we eventually enter the EMU mechanism. It could take place through a gradual process of crawling, through shadowing or many other ways. All I am suggesting is that instead of there being an empty core at the heart of the Government's economic policy, we address the issue explicitly for political and economic reasons.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember the pain caused to people with mortgages and businesses in this country when, yes, the Conservative Government tried to shadow the deutschmark and to remain in the exchange rate mechanism? Does not he remember that when we entered there were DM2.95 to the pound, and that the rate then dropped before regaining that level? Does he accept that it was not the rate that was wrong but the system?

Dr. Cable: We shall simply have to disagree on that point. It was the rate that was fundamentally wrong. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue relating to the third aspect on which I make a suggestion to the Minister, which is how we deal with the problem of mortgages. Before the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) jumps to his feet, I hope that he will allow me to finish this point. I have been fairly generous in allowing interventions.
How we handle mortgages and the housing market is important. It has been brought home to me clearly in the discussions that I have had with business that the


Government have not focused as clearly as they should have on what the changeover plan should be. It was clear from Lord Simon's address yesterday to the Treasury Select Committee that the Government have scarcely begun to think about it. It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed as part of the changeover.
The problem, as critics of EMU point out, is essentially that if there is a common interest rate across Europe, we encounter the potential one-size-fits-all problem. However, that is not a fixed item; it can be dealt with, and we can try to manage it. Clearly, manufacturing industry is less sensitive to interest rates if companies are dependent on equity and have securitised bonds and do not rely on buying on short-term interest finance. In the housing market, the one-size-fits-all monetary policy could be dealt with if house purchasers were much less dependent than they are today on variable interest mortgages.
If we are to join EMU, there is a broad national interest in trying to make sure that the British housing market is much less dependent on variable interest rate mortgages. We can see from the Irish example, which involves a similar housing market structure to that of the UK, that, unless we address this problem, there is the potential to enter a period of booms and slumps, which is avoidable.
Why have the Government not tackled the mortgage issue in their changeover plan? I suspect that the reason is that it is not in the interests of the banks and building societies that they do so. If we move to a system of fixed interest mortgages, the banks then carry interest rate risk, which they do not at present—they simply pass it on to their customers. It will require a powerful Government initiative to make that change.
I suggest that the Government begin to think of opening discussions with banks and building societies about how rapidly they can move to a system based predominantly on long-term fixed interest mortgages rather than variable mortgages, and perhaps to think about how the regulatory system has to change to accommodate that.

Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been exceptionally generous in accepting interventions. He suggests a palliative to deal with the problem of mortgage rates and their variability, but it simply does not meet the needs of the case. Why does he think it desirable that national Parliaments should, under the terms of the treaty and the terms of entry into EMU, be permanently deprived of the right to make representations to the European central bank about its conduct of monetary policy and the level of its interest rate?

Dr. Cable: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, were we to be part of EMU, Britain would participate in the management of the European central bank. That is how the system works. I believe, as I am sure Labour Members believe, that the European central bank could profitably develop in various ways. For example, it could learn from the idea of pursuing a more symmetrical monetary policy objective and from British experience. However, the fundamental issue of sovereignty is one about which I disagree with the hon. Member for Buckingham. That is a fact of political life.
How could the Government adapt the mortgage system so that the housing market was less exposed to the difficulties caused by booms and slumps which could arise in a unified monetary union? As I suggested, the first step is to be much more proactive in talking to the providers of mortgages about how they change to a different system. Another step could be to examine the way in which the regulation operates. There is no reason why regulators of building societies and banks should not require building societies and banks to offer their customers—not only new customers but existing ones—a comparable mortgage on a fixed-rate basis. Whatever the mechanism, it is clear that the Government have to be a little more positive than they have been so far—there is not a single word in the changeover plan about how to handle the problem.
Largely thanks to interventions, I have spoken for rather longer than I wished. Nevertheless, there is a great deal more to be said on this subject. Many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I look forward to hearing them.

9 59 am

Mr. Denis MacShane: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacShane: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate. It is appropriate that the House continues, on Wednesday mornings and via other Adjournment debates, to consider this very important issue. It is an issue about which the British people have not been properly informed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The ovation has gone on long enough.

Mr. MacShane: I shall try to limit my remarks to 10 minutes, in order that Tory hon. Members may relax after their excitement simply because I rose to my feet, and compose their thoughts to get their speeches ready to persuade the British people that their interests do not lie in Europe, and that the cause of little England, isolationism and xenophobia is alive and well in the Conservative party.
I am not quite sure which Conservative party is in front of me. I understand that the shadow Chancellor's position is that Britain is prepared and likely to enter the euro in six or seven years' time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Ah, I see that that is not so. Well, in 10 years' time? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No, not in 10 years' time. In 20 years' time, perhaps? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I see; not at all. We have the party of no never, no how. I remember a campfire song like that from my youth. I do not know where the rest of the Conservative party is. Perhaps those hon. Members do not choose to take part in such a debate.
Last week, we saw the Conservative party as the party of tax harmonisation. I attended Trade and Industry questions, during which the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), one of the nicest euro-sceptics—there are some nice ones among that pretty rotten bunch—demanded that the Government instantly harmonise duty on diesel with the rest of Europe. Before my very eyes, the party of no never, no how became the party of fiscal harmonisation.
We have a significant problem with tobacco and alcohol smuggling. I grew up on that wonderful Kipling poem:
Brandy for the parson, baccy for the clerk …
Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!
That was about smuggling in the 18th century.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Which school did the hon. Gentleman attend?

Mr. MacShane: St. Joseph's primary school in Wealdstone, if the hon. Member is really interested.
There is a serious problem of many people, especially young men, becoming mini criminals by participating in smuggling. I say in all candour to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they can double or triple the number of Customs and Excise men, put them on horses, give them mobile phones, or do whatever they like, but as long as the wide differences in duty on diesel, tobacco and alcohol remain, we shall continue to face such serious problems.
Smuggling is just one aspect of the debate about our relationship with Europe. I make no secret of my views; they are that Britain should be a full and leading member of the European Union. We should take advantage of the single market for economic reasons. I find it at best a semantic contradiction to claim that one can be part of a single market, but stay for ever out of the euro.
The Chancellor has laid down economic tests that are in the nation's interest. The Prime Minister has promised that triple lock of decisions in the Cabinet, Parliament and then, most importantly, in a referendum of the people, on whether we enter the euro. Leading up to the referendum, it is essential that debate is informed and intelligent. Achieving that will be quite difficult, given the behaviour of those who are passionate in their belief that Britain should be permanently disconnected from Europe.
I had some experience of such a belief this very morning. Yesterday, Le Monde, a French newspaper, published an article of deep unoriginality that I wrote, in which I described the Prime Minister's historic statement in the House on Tuesday last week, pointing out that preparations are being made for a transfer to the euro, and arguing—I believe this very strongly, and continually take this message to European capitals whenever I am lucky enough to visit them—that, if Europe is to move forward, it must substantially reform its labour market to increase flexibility and the spirit of entrepreneurship and enterprise. I wrote that Europe, too, must learn from the dynamism of the United States.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: I mean no discourtesy, but I would rather finish my speech to allow other hon. Members to speak.
I do not propose to read the article, which was in French, into the record, although I would be happy to hand out copies of it. It is deeply banal, yet I was woken at midnight because the Daily Mail, which described me as a senior aide—chance would be a fine thing—has said that I have revealed the Prime Minister's secret plan to take Britain into the euro. I was then telephoned by the Financial Times, the Press Association and The Star

in Sheffield, which are all getting excited about an article that is in no way odd—I mean off-message. It corresponds entirely with the Government's position.
It is a paradox that I do not think that I could get such an article published in any paper in this country. In the 1930s, the editor of The Times confessed in his diary that he spent every waking moment keeping anything hostile to Nazi Germany out of the paper. I sometimes think that some of today's editors spend every waking moment ensuring that anything positive about Europe is kept out of their papers.
The discussion with the British people about the euro presents a serious problem—even in many of our so-called pro-European papers, such as The Guardian and The Independent. Many of their most distinguished commentators are hostile to economic and monetary union. Hamish McRae, whose writing I admire, was very critical of EMU in The Independent yesterday. Anne McElvoy is another such hostile commentator. The Times has seconded two of its excellent columnists, Mary-Ann Sieghart and Janet Bush, to David Owen's last great attempt to find a successful niche in British politics. As someone who is broadly in favour of the euro, the fact that David Owen is against it is the best news that I have received all year.
The proposal that we should have nothing to do with the euro and Europe does not add up. I tested that idea in two ways in my constituency. The first was of course during the election campaign, when the editor of The Times wrote an article in which he said:
Don't vote for this dangerous man",
and Sir James Goldsmith placed advertisements everywhere, which read:
Don't vote for this dangerous pro-European, MacShane".
As a result, my majority went up. It tripled from when my by-election opponent was the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who campaigned in favour of capital punishment and held my majority down. He fought the general election in a safer seat, campaigning against the euro, and my majority rose.
In my constituency, we organised a fascinating experiment among the Rotherham Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise, local business, the local training and enterprise council and the college of information.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacShane: I have not taken interventions from Conservative Members, so I shall not do so from my hon. Friend. I would like to end my remarks soon so that others may make speeches.
During the Rotherham euro week, there was dual pricing in Tesco and all the shops, and we distributed questionnaires on the euro in schools, eliciting 3,000 responses. The week went down very well. The Rotherham and South Yorkshire Advertiser, a fine and excellent journal, published its price in euros for the week. To begin with, the people of Rotherham sensibly asked, "What the heck's going on with this Mickey Mouse money? This is a bit silly". But, by the end of the week, they were enjoying it. Since then, seminars that the chamber of commerce has organised on the euro have


been flooded with applications from representatives of small businesses who want to learn about it. There is a hunger for information.
The British economic community has been told a lie for the past 10 years: that Europe was none of its business, that everything that happened in Europe was negative, and that nothing emanating from anywhere in Europe was of any help to it. However, the plain fact is that we sell more to the tiny Netherlands than to all the Asian market. If any of our businesses increase sales to almost any mature European market by just 0.1 per cent., they will make more money for the United Kingdom than massive export wins that are paid in devalued Asian currencies. The European market will expand. Anyone who travels to Prague, Budapest or Warsaw will see the strength and confidence of those economies and their desire to join the euro.
I appeal not for debates in the House, but to the press to allow an informed, unhysterical, pro and anti debate. The antis have many of the finest writers, some of the best speakers and command a disproportionate amount of space in the debate. But there are three reasons—the three S's—why the euro matters: stability, security and society.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned, the euro will bring stability, with a stable inflation rate and stable interest rates, instead of the peaks and troughs that allow none of our businesses or house buyers to plan properly. It will provide security in the new global world economy, where fluctuations of currencies—the holy grail of the part of the Conservative party that is present in the Chamber—can deeply destabilise economies.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: No. I am coming to the end of my speech.
It is essential that we search for economic security for the British people because they are the ones whom we represent.
Finally, yes, there is a European project for a society that seeks, perhaps imperfectly, to include all in it. As the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin says, yes to the market economy, no to the market society.
I wonder whether Conservative Members who read The Wall Street Journal and get many of their ideas from that excellent newspaper read the wonderful article by Charles Murray a few weeks ago that described what was happening in the United States: the break-up of families, the creation of an underclass, the exclusion of millions of people from health care, the need for the American model to be based on an ever widening gap between top and bottom.
I admire much in the United States. I am pro American. We must learn from its dynamism and creativity. Tomorrow, I will publish a pamphlet on ownership, which pays tribute to innovative forms of ownership in the United States, if I may get a modest plug in for another publication, but the European model, with its idea of access to health, education and housing for all, is one which we should stick by. That is another buttressing reason why I unashamedly say that Britain's future lies in Europe.
If the British people in a referendum say yes to the euro, that will be good for Britain. I welcome the referendum debate because we need a great debate to drain once and for all the anti-European poison that has been injected into the British body politic by too many of the anti-Europeans in the Conservative party who are in the Chamber.
The great talents of those in that historic party who are in the Chamber—I see an array of future volcanoes waiting to burst into life—will be allowed to find expression only when they realise that our nation's future is inextricably linked to Europe, and that Britain must lead in Europe, instead of being an offshore island that is isolated from the future of the 21st century.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate and, perhaps even more, congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on a stocking filler of a contribution: it filled in for the reluctance of his colleagues to make any contribution to the debate. I for one am much more enlightened about the South Yorkshire press than before he spoke.

Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Loughton: May I just start my speech before taking interventions?
The most remarkable thing about the debate on the very important subject of EMU is that it has taken a Liberal Democrat Adjournment debate to get that discussed in the Chamber. Last Tuesday's announcement was described in The Independent, about which we have heard much already, as
a momentous day for our island race.
Blair turns up
it went on to say. In that announcement, the Prime Minister referred to the whole euro project as "an intensely political act." He reassured us that the Government had
resolved the political issues in favour of the principle of joining"—[Official Report, 23 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 181.]
yet we have had one short statement from the Prime Minister and questions lasting just 67 minutes in total in the Chamber on that most important subject.
On the continent, a different debate is going on. Speaking to the European Parliament in January, Joschka Fischer said that the introduction of the euro was an essential counterpart to making political union the goal of the European Union. He said:
The introduction of a common currency is not primarily an economic but rather a sovereign and thus eminently political act",
yet our Prime Minister tells us that he is interested only in the economic advantages.
Joschka Fischer went on:
Political union must be our lode star from now on. The EU would suffer an institutional heart attack unless it moved to full political integration.
In November, Chancellor Schröder said:
Only through the further development of a political union would we succeed in forming a Europe that is close to its citizens.


The debate in Europe is on an altogether higher plain, where everyone openly views the euro as merely a rung on the ladder to full political integration. That is what the debate here should be about, yet we have had just 67 minutes in the House to scrutinise the decision of the Prime Minister and Government to rush in with the changeover plan.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend wisely points out the fact that, on the continent, it is recognised that the European single currency is principally a political project. Would he also care to reflect on the frankness and candour of the former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, who said in May 1988 that the single currency was the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community? He went on to say that it was an instrument for the project of European integration. Does not that tell us all we need to know?

Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right; he is much more able at remembering quotes. The same goes throughout the continent, but not in this country.
The euro changeover plan would mean the withdrawal of sterling notes and coins in the space of just 34 months. The Prime Minister set out clinically and methodically, with no regard for the sensitivities of the British public, the details of the plan. It involves an enormous upheaval and enormous cost for industry, business and the people of the UK, but the Government cannot quantify or publish the figure—they cannot even quantify the estimated cost of the plan for Government Departments. However, on the balance of probabilities, Britain is unlikely to join the euro in the foreseeable future if a yes in the referendum remains an unassailable component of the Government's intentions.
Poll after poll shows that a great majority of the British public are against giving up sterling, despite the Government's softening up exercise, spending £7.5 million, so far, of public money on an advertising campaign, and trying to lull the public into thinking that joining the euro is little more than a convenience—they will not have to change their currency at Thomas Cook when going on a booze cruise to Calais, and it will lead to the importation of cheaper cars from the continent. As we know, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
A total of 315,906 people have so far called The Sun to voice their opposition to the euro. The comprehensive British and social European attitudes poll that was conducted last November, the most comprehensive opinion survey of its kind, which was funded by the Government, showed that only 55 per cent. of the UK public support even membership of the EU, down from 77 per cent. in 1991. The poll concluded that a majority of the British public would not cede Britain's national decision-making powers to the EU on a single policy, from agriculture to pollution.
What if a referendum comes up with a no vote? What preparations and what resources are the Government directing now to meet that much more likely eventuality? The Government seem mesmerised by preparing almost exclusively for the euro. What about the rest of the world? It is a fact that only 18 per cent. of this country's gross domestic product is down to the EU. The rest of it is in the UK and further afield overseas. Yet 100 per cent. Of

British industry, British business and the British people will bear the costs of preparing for the euro, as advocated by the Prime Minister last week.
We are constantly reminded that it is in no one's interest if the euro fails, and I certainly agree with that. Equally, and perhaps more so, it is in no one's interest if the dollar fails. The dollar is the currency of 80 per cent. of the world's financial transactions. It is the currency of 60 per cent. of the world's commercial transactions.
We are often accused—we almost heard it a short time ago from the hon. Member for Rotherham—of being little Englanders. However, the siege mentality of Europe and the EU is quite breathtaking. The United States is virtually singlehandedly playing the role of the importer of last resort to salvage the problems in the far east, and is constantly complaining that Europe is not pulling its weight.
We are told that TINA is back—there is no alternative. Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said quite clearly:
Our intention is clear: Britain should join a successful single currency".
We have joined effectively in all but name, regardless of all the problems and uncertainties surrounding our joining up.
In his statement last week the Prime Minister alluded to this. He said:
Of course we believe that the common agricultural policy needs reform … levels of unemployment in Europe are … too high … long-term structural reform is necessary."—[Official Report, 23 February 1999: Vol. 326, c. 179–931.]
But, regardless, Britain should join a successful single currency.
In January, the German Foreign Minister said that qualified majority voting posed no threat to the Germans as Germany would always be able to assemble a blocking minority of EU Members to stop any proposals that they did not like. Therefore, they would be in favour of abolishing the veto. But, regardless, we are told, Britain should join a successful single currency.
In January also the spokeswoman of the SPD in Germany, Ingrid Matthäus-Maier, told British Members of Parliament that forcing Britain to accept tax harmonisation would be the price for joining the single currency, even though it has been estimated that this could increase the UK tax burden by about 20 per cent. But, regardless, Britain should join a successful single currency. That is despite the threat to the eurobond market in London from the harmonisation of withholding tax, which will inevitably overnight drive the eurobond market to Zurich and New York, as it did in reverse back in the early 1980s, under a draft directive of article 100, with the loss of thousands of jobs in the City. The eurobond market supports $2,000 billion-worth of lending to corporates world wide.
The Government's failure to realise that financial markets especially are global and that local controls cannot be imposed in isolation is quite breathtaking. But, regardless, Britain should join. That is despite Oskar Lafontaine openly admitting his intention to shift the burden of taxation on to companies, mobile capital and environmentally polluting activities and encouraging the harmonisation of Europe to sustain each country's capacity to tax capital and preserve employment.
In the UK, we have learned the lesson that mobile capital moves when taxed. The success of the London financial markets is down to the knowledge that capital


can be moved out at the flick of a switch when things get rough. The Government are constantly boasting about reducing tax rates on companies, in contrast to the higher corporate tax burden in Germany. In the UK, the social security charges on employers account for about 6 per cent. of their GDP. On the continent, the average is double that—12 per cent. However, Oskar Lafontaine was referred to in The Daily Telegraph last month, in an article entitled, "Tony Blair and I march in step on Europe".
Chancellor Schröder also admitted that the true purpose of tax harmonisation is to staunch the investment flight from Germany rather than setting its own house in order by reforming punitive tax rather than the regulatory system.
If Britain were to be dragooned into this process, the public sector would most likely grow from about 40 per cent. of GDP at present to as much as 49 per cent. All the gains made by successive Governments over the past 20 years would be reversed. The plans of the Finnish, who take over the presidency of the European Union later in the year, are to table formal proposals to modify the treaty of Amsterdam to further tax harmonisation. But, regardless, we are told, Britain should join. That is despite all the talk of harmful tax competition between EU states. That is a paradox if ever there was one.
German companies are continuing to invest in the UK rather than in Germany. Foreign companies invest eight times more in the UK than they do in Germany. Mr. Henkel, the head of the German chamber of industry, said only last month:
We should not try to eliminate competition between EU countries. We should not forget that Europe competes against North America, South America and Asia. We will not be able to survive this competition if we are all following the German example.
Let us not forget that the UK has created more new jobs in the past six years than the whole of the euro zone put together. In Germany, unemployment last month rose to 4.45 million, about 11.5 per cent. It is predicted to stay above 4.1 million for the rest of this year. The response of the largest union in Germany, IG Metall, has been to put in a 6.5 per cent. pay claim. Last week, Allianz, Europe's largest insurer, threatened to move its key businesses out of Germany if the German Government pressed ahead with tax reforms targeting insurance companies. But, regardless, according to the Prime Minister, Britain should join.
Despite attempts to grab the United Kingdom's rebate of £2.1 billion under Mr. Lafontaine—it is referred to as a correction mechanism, apparently—regardless, Britain should join, despite the continuing furore over EU fraud and the missing £3 billion, despite the very real threat of deflation within the euro zone and despite the German attempts to devalue the euro and influence the European central bank—only this week the euro fell to a new low. That was over what was described in the Financial Times as
policy disarray as Oskar Lafontaine again tries to influence the ECB so early on.
That theme was taken up by the International Herald Tribune, as no doubt the hon. Member for Rotherham will have seen in scouring the press. An article entitled, "Initial

lustre of new money begins to fade for Europe" ended with a comment from the Federal Reserve head, Alan Greenspan that the
euro will be an interesting experiment. It has not yet been tested"—
obviously—
It is going to take years before there is really significant tests on that system.
But, regardless, apparently, Britain should join.
Despite all the uncertainty, despite all the threats of harmonisation to the UK plc, despite all the structural weaknesses in the EU and despite the fact that we just do not know where the experiment is leading, the Prime Minister has decreed that we should move up a gear and make haste to join this untested experimental currency as soon as the minor irritation of a referendum is out of the way. Regardless, Britain should join a successful single currency.
If the changeover plan was instead an Ealing comedy, it would be called, "Carry on Regardless".

Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and particularly for doing so at the precise moment that he did, because that was his 18th use of "regardless". I swore that if he reached 17, I would intervene.
In fact, the conditions and tests that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down ever since he assumed the role of Chancellor, and the tests which were reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement to the House only last week, make it clear that it is not the case that Britain, regardless, will join the single European currency. It is even acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman that it would only be regardless in joining a successful currency. That is not to make any sense whatsoever. It is to make a tautologous statement—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make a brief intervention, not a mini-speech.

Mr. Loughton: I think that the hon. Gentleman should reread the Prime Minister's statement and the subsequent questions last week. I was determined to beat the Chancellor of the Exchequer's record for mentioning prudence or financial prudence some 17 times in his Budget last year, and I have done it by a margin of one.
There is little sign of economic convergence between the United Kingdom and Europe; there is every sign of economic divergence. The "one size fits all" policy of the euro zone will lead to serious strains in Ireland, for example. In the past two years, Dublin house prices have risen by 82 per cent. The cost of living in Ireland is soaring; in response, interest rates have been halved. Company profits in Ireland are under pressure as companies become uncompetitive. It is a recipe for boom and bust, if ever I saw one.
The truth is that the Government have made up their mind, and are working on ways of getting round the minor irritation of the fact that the British people do not agree. Slowly but surely, we are being spoon fed the mantra of inevitably in the exercise.
Just last week, in The Spectator, Bruce Anderson said that the "inevitably of gradualism" is the Government's policy. It is changeover by stealth. All that guff about


"if the economic criteria are right" is subterfuge. As far as the Government are concerned, it is a matter, not of "what if", but of "what when". I fear that such arrogance, in prejudging a referendum, is becoming all too much a hallmark of the Government.
Last Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) welcomed the truth that the Government had crossed the Rubicon, albeit only by the "tiniest millimetre"—which any study of classical history would show to be something of a paradox. Nevertheless, from my study of the late-Roman republic, I was reminded that the phrase was made famous, in 49 BC, by Julius Caesar, who put himself above the law—some parallels may become clear—overturned Rome's constitutional framework, and became a dictator. He cared little for the democratic processes of the Senate, and attended the chamber rarely. By declining to stand down his army at the banks of the Rubicon, he challenged the authority of the Roman people, to promote his own personal self-embellishment and grand design for the map of continental Europe.

Mr. Bercow: Brutus.

Mr. Loughton: Candidates for Brutus may well be in the Chamber later today, on the Treasury Bench.
Five years of civil strife ensued across most of mediterranean Europe, culminating in assassination of the arrogant tyrant—at the hands of his erstwhile allies—while on a rare visit to the now emasculated senate.
The imperial age followed. The constitution of the republic was lost for good. Parliamentary accountability, such as it was in classical Rome, never recovered, as power was vested in the body of the emperor.
The Prime Minister may have more of a Napoleon complex than a Julius Caesar complex. Nevertheless, I trust that, last week, in crossing his Rubicon—as it was described—the Prime Minister has not unleashed a repeat of history.

Jacqui Smith: After hearing the speech of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), I fear that—not having had the benefit of a classical education, unlike some Conservative Members—I might be at a bit of a loss on that matter. However, I hope that I do have an understanding of economics, which is probably more relevant to this debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for initiating the debate, and welcome the opportunity of discussing the issue. I welcome especially the opportunity of considering the Government's performance in meeting the criteria that will have to be met if we are to achieve convergence. I share the Government's wish to achieve that aim, as I believe that membership of the single currency will bring significant economic benefits to the United Kingdom. The Government appreciate those benefits.
I also hope that the debate might give us some opportunity to consider Conservative Members' views on the benefits and future of the single currency. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham gave us only a lengthy reiteration of all the old

Conservative scare stories about Europe, and paid very little attention to the arguments on economic and monetary union.
Many of the untruthful scare stories promulgated by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham have nothing to do with the single currency. If the stories have any basis in reality, which is questionable, they would have more to do with membership of the European Union than of the single currency. Are we therefore to assume, from what we have heard today from Conservative Members, that they have gone even further and are actively—

Mr. Alan Clark: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jacqui Smith: No, I shall not be taking any interventions.
Are they actively advocating withdrawal from European Union?

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Jacqui Smith: No, I shall not. Is that the Conservative position? Perhaps the Opposition spokesman will tell us.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Lady has asked a question. Will she give way?

Jacqui Smith: No. I should like to finish my speech, so that the Opposition spokesman will have an opportunity to clarify the position.
The hon. Member for Twickenham asked whether we should establish further convergence criteria, and whether the Government are taking sufficient action to meet the current criteria. It might be worth while—as it is the subject of the debate—to review the Maastricht convergence criteria that will have to be met if we are to join EMU. An analysis of those criteria shows that the Government, in their stabilisation policies, have already met the criteria. Perhaps we should put a tick against those criteria.
As hon. Members have already made clear, however, the Government have decided that the Maastricht criteria are not the only ones that shall be considered in judging whether entry to the single currency is in the best interests of the United Kingdom economy. Although the point seems frequently to get lost in Opposition scare stories, that is the most important criterion in deciding whether entry to the single currency would be beneficial for the UK economy.
We should therefore consider the five tests that the Chancellor has set himself, and whether—as the hon. Member for Twickenham asked—the Government are taking active measures to ensure that the criteria are met.
The first criterion is sustainable convergence. It is a crucial test, and I shall deal with it later in my speech.
The second criterion is whether the UK economy is sufficiently flexible to cope with economic change. If we pool some of our economic sovereignty in Europe, thereby altering our ability to change monetary policy, it is important that we should have sufficient economic flexibility. The Chancellor has already placed emphasis on the supply-side of the economy—on productivity and


new deal measures—to increase economic flexibility, so that, if we do enter a single currency, we are able to cope with economic change.
The third criterion is the effect of entry on investment. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that he had spoken to business people in his constituency about the issue. Very many other hon. Members have had similar discussions in our constituencies. The very strong and clear message that I have received is that business not only wants economic stability—which the Government are delivering—but is concerned about jeopardising investment opportunities if we do not at least seriously consider joining the single currency.
Many businesses in my constituency, for example, depend on Rover Longbridge for business. As a large manufacturer, Rover's attitude to the euro demonstrates that large business thinks that entry to the euro is very important to their long-term stability and investment plans.
The fourth criterion is the impact of entry on the financial services industry. Before 1 January 1999, many people said that the euro's beginning would cause economic meltdown and chaos, and that the project was impossible. In our Treasury Select Committee visits to the City and in other contacts with the City, we have learned that the City has coped well with the euro, although other opportunities could be realised by full membership.
The final criterion is whether membership will be good for employment. I have already touched on the measures that the Government are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom economy is sufficiently flexible to meet the criterion.
Convergence is very important. Ireland has shown the difficulties that arise from joining without sufficient convergence. However, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Twickenham, the question is whether an explicit convergence target is necessary. I argue that it is not. Bank of England independence and a long-term approach to fiscal policy that will enable us to converge are more important.
I am disappointed that there has been no elucidation this morning of the Conservative position, although I still hope for some. There are important questions that need answers. Do the Conservatives believe that Britain should not join regardless of the economic considerations?

Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady continually to pose questions to the Conservatives and refuse any attempt by those of us who are present to elucidate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely in order. How the hon. Lady makes her speech is a matter for her.

Jacqui Smith: I am not sure whether that intervention suggests that the right hon. Gentleman does not have confidence in his Front Benchers' response on the issue.
There has been speculation in The Daily Telegraph on whether the Leader of the Opposition is going to sack the former Chancellor and the former Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps we shall hear some comments from the Front Bench. Is the Conservative policy to rule out membership

for 10 years, for six or seven years, or for ever? Are they concerned about the economic interests of the country? We need to know. The Government's position has been made clear. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I look forward to some elucidation from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on obtaining the debate. This is one of the most important issues—if not the most important issue—facing the country, although one would not think so from the sparse attendance on the Labour Benches. I welcome the fact that we are debating the issue, but we believe that a one-and-a-half hour Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning is wholly inadequate for an issue of such importance. Several of my hon. Friends sought to question the Prime Minister on the issue last week and were unable to do so. My hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) have sought to speak in the debate today, but there has not been time. I repeat the request made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a full debate in Government time as soon as possible.
It is not just in this place that there should be a full debate. There may well be a referendum on whether it is in the interests of this country to join a single currency. There is already considerable discussion about that. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that there are constitutional as well as economic issues at stake. It is important that they should be spelt out.
I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 185, which calls on the Government to publish a White Paper on the constitutional, economic and political implications of joining a single currency. That motion has been signed by more than 100 Members of Parliament, including Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. Does the Economic Secretary accept that the political and constitutional implications are as important as, if not more important than, the economic ones? Will she undertake to publish a White Paper setting them out?
Such arguments were noticeably absent from the Prime Minister's statement last week, which, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, contained virtually no hard information. However, it confirmed the Government's wish to abolish the pound and join the single currency. The Prime Minister's much-vaunted love affair with the pound turns out to have been simply a marriage of convenience to get him past the general election. At the first opportunity, he has ditched sterling in favour of the euro. Of course, we are told that the final decision will be subject to a referendum, but it is clear beyond doubt that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are committed to taking us into a single currency. Only the Conservative party is opposed.

Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on whether the Conservative party's fundamental objection is constitutional? If it is, does that rule out the economic considerations? If his party has decided that joining the single currency should not be countenanced on


constitutional grounds, why does he refer to economic arguments, which must be spurious and surplus to requirements?

Mr. Whittingdale: We have repeatedly made it clear that there are constitutional and economic problems with joining a single currency. That is why our manifesto for the next election will state that the next Conservative Government will not go into a single currency during the next Parliament. We have spelt that out time and again.
We have discovered that the Government are preparing to spend taxpayers' money to promote the cause of joining the single currency before and during a referendum campaign. The recent report of Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life explicitly said that taxpayers' money should not be used to influence the outcome of any referendum on UK membership. One of the key recommendations was that the Government should remain neutral and should not distribute literature at public expense—even purportedly factual literature—that set out or otherwise promoted their case. Yet already the Treasury officer of accounts has written to Departments saying that it is reasonable to spend money that is considered necessary to enable the general public to make an informed decision when they vote in a referendum. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will accept the recommendation of Lord Neill's committee and that taxpayers' money will not be used to produce literature promoting the Government's view?
The issue does not stop there. A recent health service circular advises NHS bodies that they should not enter into contracts with a supplier who has no plans to introduce euro-compliance into their software. The health service is to be forced to place orders not with the most cost-effective supplier, but with those who are euro-compliant. That will result in better value contracts being rejected and money that the health service desperately needs being wasted to satisfy the Government's obsession with joining the euro.
Last week's statement purported to set out details of the national changeover plan, but many fundamental questions remain unanswered. One of the most basic questions, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), is how much it will cost. The Government appear incapable of answering. The Prime Minister glibly referred in his statement to tens of millions of pounds having to be spent to make departmental computer systems euro-compatible, but there appear to be no detailed estimates. How much will the Government spend over the next three years on making the public sector euro-compliant? It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on Monday that it depends. We are talking about public money and Parliament has a right to know. It is clear that the cost to the economy as a whole of changing to the euro will run into billions of pounds.
Much has been made of possible savings in transaction costs, but they are likely to be wiped out for years to come by the cost of conversion. Again, there is hardly any mention of that in the Government's document. Instead, businesses are being urged to commit massive resources to preparing for the changeover, when it is highly possible that it may never occur.
The Government's document is also silent on another key requirement. Article 121 of the Amsterdam treaty states that it is a requirement of membership that the

fluctuation margins provided for must be observed by the currency for at least two years before joining. That was one of the conditions for first-wave entrants. The European Commissioner has said that if and when the UK decides to join, we shall have to comply with the same conditions. The Prime Minister said last week that it was not his policy to shadow the euro. How does he intend to meet the condition so that we shall be in a position to join? The Economic Secretary understands such matters better than the Prime Minister does. Will she tell us whether the Government intend to instruct the Bank of England to seek to influence the exchange rate to shadow the euro, as the treaty requires? How does that square with the Bank's inflation remit, as the hon. Member for Twickenham asked?
Let me deal briefly with another key requirement for membership that the Government have set—economic convergence. We have already seen the fudging of the Maastricht criteria to ensure that all the first-wave applicants were successful. Will the Minister assure us that there will be no fudging of the Chancellor's five economic tests? If that is the case, how will she judge whether cyclical convergence has taken place? The Government's own document states that, over the past decade, the United Kingdom has become increasingly out of step with Germany, while the United States and United Kingdom cycles have been relatively synchronised. Has the Minister any evidence that is changing? Given the facts, how can the United Kingdom possibly be in a position to join in five years' time?
All those questions must be answered, but the Government have ducked them all. Instead of answering, they are trying to create the impression that entry is inevitable.
We have already observed the Government's skill at raising taxes by stealth; now they are trying to take us into a single currency by stealth. The truth is that a single currency would be against our economic interests, and against our national interest. That is not just our view. We now know that it is the view of the last Labour Chancellor; it is the view of the former leader of the Social Democratic party, which was allied with the party of the hon. Member for Twickenham, and—as every survey has shown—it is overwhelmingly the view of the British people.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on his success in securing the debate, and on his thoughtful speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his witty contribution, which was, as he pointed out, entirely on-message. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) made an intelligent speech, especially from the perspective of the business community. It was also interesting to hear a contribution—albeit somewhat confused—from a representative of the anti-European Conservative party.
The issue of British participation in the single currency is the most important issue with which the country is likely to deal for a generation. That is why, on taking office, the Government resolved to end the indecision and divisions that have isolated us from the debate in Europe, and sidelined our national interest. That is why,


in October 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the Government's clear policy, a policy reiterated last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We intend to join a successful single currency if it is in the country's economic interests. That remains our policy.
The hon. Member for Twickenham suggested that the Government should instruct the Monetary Policy Committee to take convergence into account, even if that meant, in certain specific circumstances, having to pursue a target contrary to the inflation target that is the committee's remit. Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the success of the new monetary framework that the Government have created. It has delivered falling long-term interest rates—they are now only 0.5 per cent. higher than those in the euro zone—and the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years.
We believe that the primary objective of the Bank of England must remain the delivery of price stability, as is clear from the inflation target that we have set for it. That is the Bank's responsibility, that is what British interest rates are intended to deliver, and that is what they should continue to deliver. It would be extremely foolish to confuse that inflation target with a different target, whether by reference to a general convergence target or, more specifically, by reference to an exchange rate target or exchange rate zones. That would remove the predictability and transparency of our new monetary policy framework, and would undoubtedly reduce its effectiveness.
Similarly, if—as some have suggested—we tried to shadow the interest rates of the European central bank, it would mean accepting a monetary policy that was right for the euro zone, but not right for the United Kingdom; and that would lead to more instability, not less.
The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to the structural differences in the housing market. Differences indeed exist in the housing market, and in the nature of housing finance: we pointed that out in the Treasury report on convergence. I stress, however, that the trend in the British housing market is now towards a much greater use of fixed-rate mortgages, whose advantages the hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised. The fact that 50 per cent. of new mortgages are being taken out at a fixed interest rate reflects the lower inflation expectations and the consequent lower risk now associated with fixed-rate mortgages. It also illustrates the success of our monetary policy framework.

Mr. Alan Clark: I thank the Minister for giving way. That contrasts with the behaviour of some of her hon. Friends.
In her lucid and articulate exposition of the reasons for not shadowing the euro, the Minister defined precisely the reasons for not entering the euro. Was that a slip on the part of whoever wrote the speech for her?

Ms Hewitt: The reason why we should not shadow the euro, and the reason why we should seek to shadow the interest rates currently set by the European central bank, are exactly the reasons why we should not enter the euro at this stage. To do so would not be in Britain's interests, because it would mean setting an interest rate designed for conditions in Europe, not those in Britain. That is why we will enter a successful single currency only if there is a sustained and settled period of convergence, and if doing so would be good for the British economy and British jobs.

Mr. Bercow: Why does the Minister say that the Government do not propose to shadow the euro, when they have signed the treaty of Amsterdam, article 121 of which specifically requires that shadowing? The Chancellor's advisers know that; Gavyn Davies and the responsible European Commissioner know it. Does the Minister not know? If she does not, why does she not admit it?

Ms Hewitt: The condition required for entry into the euro is a period of exchange-rate stability, and our policy is for a stable and competitive exchange rate. We shall not achieve that by targeting a particular exchange rate; we shall achieve it on the basis of sound economic fundamentals. That is why our economic policy is designed to secure low and stable inflation, steady and sustainable growth, and sound public finances.
The Luxembourg European Council stated that, in general, exchange rates should be seen as the outcome of other economic policies. That is precisely the Government's view, and that is why we are not pursuing the suggestion of the hon. Member for Twickenham.
I am sorry that, given the time allowed and the number of interventions, I have not been able to deal with all the points that have been raised; but I assure the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that it is far more sensible to spend now, in preparation for possible entry to the euro. As Derek Wanless, the head of NatWest, has said, the longer the time that we have, the less it costs, because the costs of preparation for a possible eventuality are built into the on-going project.

British Film Industry

11 am

Mr. Tom Clarke: I begin by declaring an interest, as already recorded. Specifically, since 15 February this year, I have been non-executive chairman of Spring Studios. More generally, my interest in film goes back a long time. Since the House returned from the summer recess, I have been trying to obtain this debate because of that long-standing, passionate and professional interest in film.
Before I came to the House in 1982, I had spent most of my working life as an executive with the Scottish Film Council, and I had the privilege of serving later as a governor of the British Film Institute, under the chairmanship of Lord Attenborough. It was with real delight, therefore, that I heard that the House would have a chance to discuss the future of the British film industry.
I look forward to speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially from the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, whom I congratulate warmly on her appointment. She used my parking space for many years and, in the unlikely event of my driving in London—something I have never done—and thus spreading terror throughout the metropolis, I am sure that she would reciprocate.
The House will know that the Government's review of the film industry, "A Bigger Picture", was published in March last year. It was co-chaired by Stewart Till, president of Polygram Filmed Entertainment, and myself. If I may say so, it was described by the Financial Times as
the most comprehensive review of the film industry in over 30 years.
It was, I believe, a testament to the excellent work done on the review by all who contributed to it.
We had an expert team to work with us on the review—a team which covered every aspect of Britain's film industry and film culture, with every kind of company, from the smallest independent to the largest corporation, drawn from every part of Britain. The findings of the group were eagerly awaited not just in the UK, but in Europe and across the Atlantic. The review group was set key objectives by the Government, which were announced in Cannes days after the election by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The crucial challenge was how to ensure that the flow of quality British films reached our audiences. Specifically, one of the key objectives was to double the market share of British films. Thankfully—and in full accord with the new Labour style of government—the objective was realised during the months in which the report was compiled. The share of domestic box office taken by British films did double—in large measure due to the extraordinary success of films such as "The Full Monty". However, that vintage year also contained "Shooting Fish", "Mrs. Brown", "Bean", "The Borrowers" and "Brassed Off'. Speaking personally, I had a high regard for "Brassed Off', which deserved even more success. That may be because my father was a miner rather than a stripper, and I still have many ex-miners in my constituency.
By March 1998, as the review indicates, the audience share for British films had risen to 23 per cent. However, with the most recent figures showing that it is down to 14 per cent., there is a danger of boom and bust—a worry

for my Front-Bench colleagues. Evidence of our talent became apparent again when, this year, "Elizabeth" received seven Oscar nominations, and "Shakespeare in Love" received 13. In this week's BAFTA nominations, the films picked up 28 nominations between them.
All that is welcome, and it confirms what we already know—that our movies are capable, without compromising their individuality, of attracting huge audiences at home and abroad. The successes show that we have real genius in this unique area where culture and commerce meet. I have always believed that we can build on those talents to a far greater degree, and produce a truly creative, integrated and robust British film industry.
Despite our talents and their considerable success, we must acknowledge that that success is precarious. There is no doubt that we have some of the most gifted film makers in the world, but we do not have enough of the structures in place—something which is crucial in today's modern, global enterprise economy. We must ensure that we sustain and improve on our success, year on year.
Despite our recent achievements, we are, to say the least, in the questionable situation where there is no guarantee that revenues from British success stories will be reinvested in the production of more British films. We need only look at the excellent "Four Weddings and a Funeral", which is still the biggest-grossing UK film world wide. Its producer, Duncan Kenworthy OBE—as of yesterday—made a sterling contribution to the review. We wish him well with "Notting Hill", the film he has just completed. I am sure that he will continue to inspire others to invest and support this creative industry.
We desperately need the modern companies and business skills that could enable more of our film makers to make bigger and better pictures that get on more screens in Britain and around the world. Far too often, the vision of a renaissance of our film industry has been waved before our eyes, only to be replaced with broken dreams and dashed hopes. Plainly, the industry in Britain has structural weaknesses which prevent it from reaching its full potential, as a comparison of the US and UK industries demonstrates.
The US film industry is undoubtedly extremely successful. However, when we share the same language advantage as the US and when our film makers are acknowledged to be some of the most creative in the world, we must ask why the British film industry does not perform as the American industry does. "A Bigger Picture" showed that there are massive differences in structure between the US and UK industries.
The US industry is dominated by distribution-led integrated companies, where the processes of development, production acquisition and distribution are financed and carried out by a single entity. They believe that vertical integration is the right approach. By contrast, the UK industry is fragmented, and sometimes gives the impression that it lacks the ambition to change. The production process is separate from the distribution process, which is dominated by big US companies. In Britain, most producers have no close relationship with their distributor, and often have to sell all their rights for their films to be distributed.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's flow, but I cannot resist interjecting at this point to confirm one contrast


between the US and British film industries: the US film industry is willing to take far greater poetic licence. I have in mind the new US film about the alleged capture of a German submarine by Americans who, supposedly took hold of the Enigma machine, thus shortening the war by enabling the code breakers to do their work.
I wonder whether, even at this late stage, representations might be made to the American producers to allow a walk-on part to my constituent, the then Royal Navy Sub-Lieutenant David Balme DSC, who actually captured the Enigma machine from the U-110 seven months before America even entered the war.

Mr. Clarke: I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's little speech. He will understand if I do not respond in detail, as this is only a short debate and others want to speak.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I quickly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's work as films Minister? On the point about distribution weakness inhibiting the success of British films, has our mutual friend Barry Spikings had any success in Hollywood with the American film distribution companies in trying out new arrangements with Britain and the rest of Europe, on a partnership basis, to make it easier for films made in the European Union to be shown in our own countries?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to our mutual friend Barry. He is, indeed, working away on those projects in the United States.
We cannot complain about American investment and integration or even about the huge American influence in Britain's cinemas. The Americans have cracked it and we should welcome their investment. The United States can see the attraction in investing in Britain, but we do not invest with the same enthusiasm in our indigenous industry.

Mr. David Chidgey: Is not the problem that we simply cannot attract sufficient investment in the production of British films to get beyond the critical mass that would enable our films to attract worldwide distribution and get the return on the investment that would bring growth to the industry?

Mr. Clarke: That is absolutely right. That was the main thrust of "A Bigger Picture". Frankly, until we reach that point, I do not believe that we can claim success for our film industry.
It is perhaps no surprise that the average budget for wholly British films produced in 1997 was less than £3.5 million, compared with more than £18 million for the overseas films made in the United Kingdom. The comparison highlights the bizarre situation of the British film industry. After all, if overseas—usually US—companies can, rightly, see the potential of investment in Britain, why is domestic confidence so much weaker?
The film policy review group had that in mind when it examined the underlying structures, and it soon became obvious that we need to encourage the emergence of a distribution-led industrial process, with firms capable of attracting major private investment, and greater integration between production and distribution. If we are

to create a modern industry that is successful at every stage, from initial development of a script through production to marketing and distribution and, finally, exploitation by television or video, every part of it must come together and play its full role in building the conditions for success.
It was my belief during the review, as it is now, that the long-term interests of the British film industry and of the small independent production groups within it rests in collective action to address the needs of the industry as a whole. A great start in the process of all sectors coming together was my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's welcome announcement in his first Budget of tax reliefs for film production.
That announcement was excellent, and demonstrated the Government's will to assist the film industry, but if we are to get anywhere, Government actions must be matched by all who benefit from our film industry. In "A Bigger Picture", we proposed that, to complement the Government's fiscal initiative, the whole industry be invited to contribute on a co-operative and voluntary basis to an all-industry fund to improve the development, distribution and marketing of British films.
If enhanced, those activities will benefit the whole industry, and I still believe that they should be funded at least in part by the industry itself. After enormous consultation and debate, it was estimated that a voluntary contribution of as little as 0.5 per cent. of the film-related revenue of approximately £3 billion a year would raise about £15 million a year. With that funding, we agreed, there should be a significant increase in the size and prospects of the British film industry, to the benefit of all, which would more than outweigh the relatively small cost.
Some of the other measures recommended in the report are already being implemented. I hope that the House will recognise that the scale of what can be achieved will be greatly increased if the industry is prepared to underpin the Government's strategy with its own investment. That is an essential ingredient of success.
In effect, we faced a choice. We knew that we had identified desirable policy objectives, and we could either introduce the first Films Bill since 1985 or seek to bring everything and everyone with us, here and abroad, with a something for something principle, in which I still believe.
After all, should not those who benefit from films contribute to the investment in them? Are we to suffer from chronic lack of investment while our wiser, but no more gifted, competitors race ahead? In that spirit, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether progress is being made on the fund, which is a key element in the package. Considering the difficulties, has the action committee explored the scope for an alternative that will achieve the aims of the original proposal?
The fund would complement the work of the Arts Council of England, which has considered committing £100 million of lottery money to film over the next three years. I am sure that the House would agree that it is right to continue to support the British film industry, and I believe that the Government have set the policy options.
A further consideration that we identified was the need for significant progress in the development of links between the City and the industry to create long-term investment opportunities. That was the reasoning that helped to establish the film finance forum, which was to


consider specific proposals and might improve the industry's investment potential, one of its primary tasks being to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of front-end tax relief schemes for investors to encourage the creation of well-capitalised, integrated distribution entities.
It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell the House about the progress of the finance forum. I am sure that she has kept the Treasury informed of the industry's views about the beneficial effects of the 100 per cent. tax write-off for production. Can she give us any information about the Treasury's thinking on further tax reliefs for the industry? Has there been further dialogue, for example on the £15 million cut? Given that the ad hoc working party that was set up in June 1998 by the film action group, which I briefly chaired, has presumably reached some conclusions on distribution tax reliefs, can my hon. Friend the Minister enlighten the House on what those might be?
A debate about the British film industry would not be complete without mentioning the role of the country's highly skilled broadcasters. It was the view of the group, and still is the view of many to whom I have spoken in the industry, that our terrestrial and satellite broadcasters should stand up and take more responsibility for their obligations to the British film industry. After all, broadcasters use film. They should make a contribution to the success of film.
When I met broadcasters, including Channel 5, Granada and BSkyB, there was an obvious synergy in the training and development of writers and actors which, with convergence, is bound to increase. It is a shame that there may be some broadcasters who object to contributing to the fund, as great care was taken to ascertain the views of the broadcasters during the review and afterwards in the action group. It simply is not on for some to suggest that they were not consulted. They were involved as much as every other section of the industry. That said, it would be wrong not to mention the BBC, with whose help "Mrs. Brown" was a major success, and Channel 4, which has recently made an excellent contribution to the industry. I understand that the ITV network has signalled that it wants its companies to invest more in film and we look forward to seeing the fruits of that £100 million investment. Some broadcasters still play a minor role, and, in all candour, I had expected satellite and Terrestrial broadcasters to be more vibrant as we move into the digital age.
The development of the industry depends heavily on film industry training and that point cannot be overemphasised. An adequate supply of skilled professionals is the only sure way to service a growing industry and to keep labour costs competitive. If the success of the industry in Britain is to be sustained, we need to emphasise the requirement for training, both for this and the next generation of the work force behind the camera, and in scriptwriting and development. We also need to encourage Skillset, the national training organisation for film and television, in its sterling work. In that context, it defeats me to understand why—if I understand the position correctly—the national film and television school has been largely sidestepped in consideration of structural issues.
I found it almost unbelievable that, before the review, in an industry with an annual value across all media in

the United Kingdom estimated at more than £3 billion, the then independent production training fund raised as little as £90,000 a year. That represents a minuscule proportion of the value of the industry to this country. For that reason, a skills investment fund has been established. Producers of British films will be asked to contribute 0.5 per cent. of the production costs of their films up to £10 million and 0.25 per cent. for any costs above £10 million. For two years, the contributions will be voluntary. Because the group felt so strongly about the need for increased financing—and I agree—if the trial period was unsatisfactory, the Government would consider whether proper action needed to be taken. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that that is still the position.
Training should be seen as the responsibility of all sectors of the industry that rely on the quality of British films produced. I take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend what discussions she has had on the skills investment fund and what plans she has to progress the crucial policy area of voluntary arrangements should they be proving elusive.
Obviously, the commercial appeal of films is central to their box office success. In that area, the group tried to set up an action plan to help the industry increase the marketability of British films and, equally, the attractiveness of films and the cinema for the British public. We recommended the establishment of a film marketing agency which would promote a generic interest in film, based on a permanent audience research capability, providing the sort of information that the British Audience Research Bureau provides for television and staffed by marketing professionals. Such a proposal would make it possible to determine the attitudes of the actual and potential audience for film, enabling the industry to respond to or even anticipate consumer demand, as television does.
The report also recommended that more should be done to help independent producers get their films shown at the major film markets. I understand that the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television has agreed to take this on. I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what progress has been made on the setting up of a film marketing agency and the PACT initiative on overseas marketing. Can she update me on how we are to launch script development in the absence of voluntary arrangements for the all-industry fund? It is often said that one can make a bad film from a good script, but one cannot make a good film from a bad script. Will my hon. Friend also update us on the script development scheme that has been proposed by the Arts Council? Will such a scheme include previous box office success in the criteria?
Some believe that the British film audience is less adventurous than some of its counterparts abroad, and that it should be a longer-term goal to create what is called a more cine-literate—although I do not much like the word—population, through education in its wider sense at all stages and at all levels. It was for that reason that we proposed the setting up of a working group to draw up a strategy for film education. Not only would this have education benefits for generations to come, but it would provide social and economic benefits. A broader range of film makers, distributors and exhibitors would be able to find an audience and to survive in the marketplace. What discussions has my hon. Friend the Minister had with


ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment on that important matter and on whether the BFI's plans for it have now matured?
In terms of the UK industry and the worldwide marketplace, the UK has a real advantage. Because of its language, the Hollywood production companies find it relatively compatible with the work environment that they require and, even more significantly, our films have the ability to find an audience outside the local marketplace. arious measures were implemented, such as the setting up of an office in Los Angeles, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend has any plans to visit it in the near future. I recommend that she should.
Closer to home for me, the Scottish contribution to the British film industry continues to be extremely important. We have film-making talent in abundance up there, although I am too modest to include my own little effort, "Give Us A Goal", in that category.
The lack of structure of the industry in the whole UK, however, has a detrimental impact on Scottish film production. I ask my hon. Friend to clarify the relationship between Scottish and UK film institutions. The British Film Institute, British Screen and the British Film Commission appear to have a mixture of British and English responsibilities, and I urge my hon. Friend and her counterpart in Scotland to clarify that situation as soon as possible, not least because of the setting up of the Parliament in Scotland this year. It would be helpful if dialogue was known to be taking place this side of that Parliament's taking up its duties. As a Scot, I would welcome clarification.
It is important that the changes recommended for the British film industry should be seen within the objectives of creating a self-sustaining European audiovisual industry that is able to win a greater share of the European market. The European Union's audiovisual seminar at Birmingham during our presidency last year was a great success. Excellent work is being carried out in Europe by Commissioner Marcelino Oreja, whom I met a few weeks ago in Brussels, not least in his policy, which I wholly commend, of encouraging the development of centres of training and excellence.
In Britain, it was proposed that the film finance forum should make it a priority to develop plans to encourage the growth of European investment vehicles to lead private money investment in a slate of films attached to the distribution entities. What is the Government's position on the proposals in Commissioner Oreja's document, "The Digital Age", particularly those relating to the securitisation fund?
"A Bigger Picture" was largely silent on structure in the British film industry because we knew that the comprehensive spending review would produce proposals. The review was followed by a document containing a section titled, "Film—What happens now?" In another document from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—"A New Cultural Framework"—I read:
Work will start immediately with existing film bodies in preparations for the establishment of a new body, with input from Lord Attenborough.
Lord Attenborough is one of Britain's most respected film makers, and I am pleased to see that he is involved in such an important initiative. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the current status of that work.
Film means many things to different people. For some, it is an industry, for others an art form. Many see it as an aspect of creative Britain. However, there is no doubt of film's enduring qualities, and its ability to adapt to changing demands from the most basic broadcasting to digital television. The audiovisual industry faces a challenge, but it is more than capable of taking it on. What is abundantly clear is that there is no limit to the role that the industry can play as we approach the millennium. The future can be a glowing one. Given a fair wind, and given the determination to succeed, that glowing future is well within our grasp.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I express the House's gratitude to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) for giving us a rare chance to consider the film industry, of which he has been a luminary for many years. Many people respect his personal contribution both in and out of Government and Parliament. He has given us a wide-ranging conspectus, and I shall not seek to follow that. Most of us will wish to hear what the Minister will say to the points that he has raised, and my contribution will be more of a declaration than a main theme.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise that the boom in the British film industry is remarkable. Its international recognition since 1990 has been enormous—18 per cent. of all Oscars, 15 per cent. of prizes at Montreux and 15 per cent. of prizes at the Monte Carlo television festival have been awarded to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish feature films and television programmes.
The box office grosses have also been staggeringly impressive: "Four Weddings and a Funeral" took $256 million; "The Full Monty" took $249 million; "Bean" took $234 million; "The English Patient" took $230 million; "Sense and Sensibility" took $134 million; and, "Trainspotting" took $74 million.
These are extraordinary achievements. The United Kingdom is today second only to the United States as a source of films for the international market. We want a springboard for growth and development. Although we have the great advantage of the English language, other challenges exist. There is important new activity in European countries, including Germany, Poland and Spain as well as France, and that is making an impact on the film market while enjoying considerable Government support. Some countries provide much more strategic capital investment than we provide, and we must be clear about what processes we may initiate to ensure that the success that we have enjoyed continues and that we are not squeezed out of our relatively good current position.
On the debit side, it is important to recognise that our structural problems remain acute. During the period that I have already mentioned, we have seen the disappearance of several companies—Thorn EMI, Screen Entertainment, Rank, Goldcrest, Handmade Films, Virgin, Palace Pictures, Helmdale and Embassy—that were engaged in production and distribution. All of them had access to money, but all of them have gone.
As the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television has pointed out, we have enormous talent in our new breed of producer—gifted people such as Tim Bevan and


Eric Felner, Nik Powell, Steven Woolley and Duncan Kenworthy. Fifteen years ago, we had companies, but today we have the people.

Mr. Chidgey: Is not it a fact that the British film industry has traditionally been a cottage industry, working from film to film on an almost ad hoc basis? It is incredibly difficult to match the power of the American studio system which sees film making as a business, not just an art.

Mr. Maclennan: That is true, and that is the challenge. There is no straightforward answer, but some answers can be made to the questions put by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston.
The case for investment in the industry is strong given the growth of the business world wide, and especially the growth in English language film making, which has enjoyed a growth rate of between 11 and 15 per cent. since the mid 1980s. With the further growth of pay television services, the introduction of digital television and digital video disc, and the growth of other world markets in Latin America, the far east and central Europe, we can anticipate a market for the product. If the investment can be delivered, there should be a major return on it.
The Government have recognised those facts and taken some significant steps to which we must properly pay tribute. Early on, they granted the long-requested 100 per cent. tax relief on film production in the year in which expenditure is incurred. Its absence had been a major drawback for the corporate consortium investor. Like the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, I want to know what is happening about the removal of the £15 million cap. That remains a live issue. On the eve of the Budget, we cannot expect to learn what the Government have in mind, but it is important to use this opportunity to press for the issue to be tackled.
Another issue is the withholding tax system, under which all payments, including transport and other expenses, are taxed at basic rate at source. That continues to add up to 20 per cent. to the cost of employing a foreign actor in the United Kingdom. Given the need to cast American actors to help the prospects of film distribution in the United States, the Government should address that. If they made known their calculations of the effect of increased production on the economy, we might learn that withholding tax would yield more.
Many British films are largely financed by the major American studios. Fox financed "The Full Monty". "Shakespeare in Love" is similarly a largely American-funded picture. While the American giants control the market, it continues to be difficult for smaller film makers to make their mark. We have no major studio of our own. In the longer term, the Department should consider the feasibility of the incentives—export incentives, tax credits and other funding mechanisms—that were used by the United States to boost the fortunes of American studios in the early 1970s. In the meantime, we must consider the problems of film making as they stand.
We welcome the forthcoming establishment of British Film and hope that it will bring together the various strands of strategic thinking, allowing a policy for the whole industry with adequate financial support and investment from the centre. It will operate in devolved

Britain, and it is important that national institutions such as Scottish Screen play their part on the basis of participation, not mere consultation.
The British Screen Advisory Council calculates that total lottery funding will need to be at least £35 million per annum and that grant in aid support must be maintained at the present level, at the very least. The funding must be put on a secure medium-term basis, with resources committed by the Government for three years. That will allow adoption of a strategic plan to ensure the best use of funds.
I am concerned about distribution. British films are hard pressed to get on British screens. As long as ago as 1994, the British Film Institute asked the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate unfair practices in British cinemas. Although the commission seemed sympathetic to the case, it considered that it could not examine film supply more generally. Have the Government considered whether that regulatory approach could be reconsidered?
PACT, which represents 1,400 British film and television making companies, proposes that British Film should earmark a fund to underwrite some of the marketing costs incurred by distributors of UK qualifying films. The Government could consider a tax shelter mechanism targeted at the independent distribution business to attract new entrants and consolidate the strength of those who are still in it.
The distribution of British films in America will remain a problem for the foreseeable future. It is exceedingly difficult for most British films to secure distribution there, without which it is difficult to succeed. That is recognised by Government and industry. It is good that, through the lottery, subsidy can be spent on the development of projects and film distribution, as well as on film production.
Our industry could be a world beater. In artistic and technical terms, there is no doubt that it is so recognised. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston was correct to emphasise the importance of training. We do much work on individuals who are valued throughout the world. They tend to be sucked out to Hollywood where their skills are recognised. We must guarantee film training throughout the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We must do all that we can to ensure that the products of that training can work in our studios.
We must ensure that the tax burdens that draw film makers away from production in Britain are lifted and that the tax incentives used to lure film makers from abroad examined. Most of all, British Film and its brother organisations must encourage and promote public and private partnerships to invest in film making and distribution in the United Kingdom. I conclude by again thanking the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) for calling this much-needed debate. As Minister of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, he advanced many useful ideas on the film industry with great expertise, due to his lifelong commitment and great devotion to, and vast knowledge of, films and their production. His contribution is much appreciated throughout the industry.
I was not expecting to speak, so I have not had the time that I would have liked for research on a subject for which I have such enthusiasm. I will therefore concentrate on matters that I know well from personal experience over what may be too many years. The production and showing of British films do not only generate money for the Exchequer and provide employment for the many skills and talents in the industry; the spin-off in wealth generation can go well beyond that. British films, particularly those celebrating our way of life, such as "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Mrs. Brown", "Brassed Off', "The Full Monty" and "Shakespeare in Love"—which I have not had the opportunity to see yet—and the imaginative use of location work promotes tourism, both from abroad and domestically. My constituency is a microcosm of that. The Keighley and Worth Valley railway, of which I am a vice-president, has attracted many film and television producers to use the various locations, from industrial heartland to the magnificent Pennines above Haworth and Oxenhope, in such films as "Yanks" and the much loved "The Railway Children".
I shall be a little self-indulgent, because my interest in "The Railway Children" stems from the fact that I fear that my claim to fame will never be as the Member for Keighley or as the wife of Bob or mother of John but as an extra on that film. Hon. Members will have difficulty spotting me. I had dark hair in June 1970 when we had four wonderful weeks of sun—amazing for the Worth valley. So also was my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), as he and his sister Jane, aged six and four at the time, dutifully waved their flags in the presentation scene when the Old Gentleman William Mervyn presented gold watches to
the saviours of the iron road",
as only William Mervyn could. That scene was on Oakworth station platform. The crossing keeper's house was Perks cottage, now a successful bed-and-breakfast establishment organised by a friend of mine, Councillor John Cope, and his wife Patricia.
For 29 years Keighley and the Worth valley area's hotels, shops and cafes have benefited from that one film. So we can see that a great deal of money can be generated for the country as a whole from the films that we produce.
Before I leave the subject of "The Railway Children", I pay tribute to the man who was behind the camera throughout the eight weeks of production, especially at Oakworth and in Oxenhope. The real stars of that film were the railway engines, not Jenny Agutter, William Mervyn and the others. The railway engines were brought to life by cameraman Arthur Ibbetson's use of the camera. "The Railway Children" was the first film directed by Lionel Jeffries. As it was his first film, he did not have a great deal of expertise in film making, but I feel that Arthur Ibbetson carried him through, such was his expertise. Arthur died last year and that is why I am mentioning his name so much.
Arthur lbbetson started his career as a clapperboy on "Brief Encounter", made largely at Carnforth. He was the lighting cameraman on 30-odd films, including "Whistle Down the Wind", "The League of Gentlemen", and "A Countess from Hong Kong". In "Where Eagles Dare", he was able to demonstrate his expertise in the use of day-for-night shooting. For "Anne of the Thousand Days",

he received an Oscar nomination, and rightly so. I am not sure what the position is regarding the film school, but I hope that it and other organisations will continue to produce skilled people such as Arthur Ibbetson for the benefit of our film industry.
I shall go outside Britain to demonstrate how there can be a spin-off from film production. A few weeks ago, I was in Strasbourg for a meeting of the Council of Europe. I talked for the first time to a colleague, a socialist Member of Parliament for the centre of Vienna. I said that I knew Vienna well because I had seen "The Third Man" about 10 times, although I had never been there. I asked what was left of Vienna at that time. She said that "The Third Man" was a growing source of tourism. Apparently, the little cabins on the big ferns wheel can now be hired for functions such as children's parties, and they are very popular. I asked her about the cemetery, which is still there. I asked her about the wonderful railway station, too. I am afraid that that has gone. I also asked about the wonderful shots of Harry Lime being chased in the sewers.
My colleague told me that there were now guided tours of the sewers. Hon. Members will be relieved to learn that sewage is no longer carried down them; they now form a culvert for a river. The tourism industry is linking on to the film and providing guided tours along an underground walkway.
When Carol Reed made "The Third Man" in 1949, he demonstrated to us all and, I hope, to younger film makers of today, that it is possible to have the audience on the edge of their seats with excitement and spellbound by what is going on without using gratuitous violence, blood and gore. He used shadow and atmosphere to generate enthusiasm in his audience.
I shall try to be brief because I know that others want to speak, but I wish to put in a plug for Bradford. "Billy Liar" and "Room at the Top" were made there, and we are now proud to have the national museum of photography, film and television, which I think is the only place in the world where one can see all forms of film projection, including Imax, 3-D, cinemascope and cinerama. On Friday, the Bradford film festival begins, to run for two weeks. I am sure that it will be of great benefit to our industry. In a few weeks, we shall see the reopening of the museum, which has been completely refurbished. I am sure that many hon. Members will want to see the museum.
I am afraid that my cinema-going is now dominated by my grandchildren. The most recent film that I have seen is "A Bug's Life". I am sure that Conservative Members will not agree with me, but for me the film expressed the philosophy of "the workers united will never be defeated." I am not sure that Conor and Robert thought that, but I did.
During the general election in Keighley, I was ably assisted by Lord Dickie Attenborough, who has already been mentioned. He came up to campaign for me, and he was wonderful. He did that not because he thought that I was wonderful but because he felt that a Labour Government would have a greater understanding of and give greater support to the British film industry. So I shall finish by saying that I hope that we do not let the British film industry down and that we do what Dickie Attenborough hoped that we would do.

Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). She referred to Oakworth. I had the honour to live in Oakworth for some 16 years. I have fond recollections of the Worth valley railway and of the hon. Lady's late husband in connection with the film industry. My family's claim to fame is that we supplied extras to "Yanks", which was also filmed there. My late uncle Bob ate successive bowls of rice pudding to act as a backdrop to one of the Rank charm school films.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on obtaining the debate. He was a distinguished Minister for the film industry. He spoke at great length of the needs of the industry, but he left out something which I know—he is a great enthusiast for films and the media. He made only one mistake and it was a fatal one. He succumbed to the curse of the Cannes film festival, which as hon. Members may know is as fatal—perhaps the Minister will understand this—to the interests of British film Ministers as the Tutankhamun curse is to those who wish to dig up ancient Egyptians.
The right hon. Gentleman demonstrated characteristic courage in the debate. Today is virtually the anniversary of "A Bigger Picture", a publication which laid out the Government's action plan. For most of the right hon. Gentleman's excellent speech, he was doing the monitoring for the Government. There are certain things that we want to know have happened. On page 6 of the document, the various recommendations are listed. It is a matter of regret that the first of the so-called radical plans—the all-industry fund—disappeared without much lament in November last year. The fund was described as the linchpin of the British film revival. Without that linchpin, many of the other items in the 12-point plan have come to naught.
The right hon. Members for Coatbridge and Chryston and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) both referred to the July 1997 Budget, the first to be presented by the Government, which introduced the 100 per cent. write-off for films with a value of less than £15 million. I am not aware of one film that has benefited from that, although, if I am wrong, I shall be happy for the Minister to correct me on that point. Perhaps the reason is that it has taken 18 months for the regulations to be prepared. The Government might want to make amends—possibly next week—and they could do so by lifting that £15 million cap. There are still strong reasons for the measure, because it was introduced to protect our studios and our skills base and to attract to our economy inward investment that would otherwise have been directed elsewhere—notably to Ireland.
However, it is true that there has been something of a boom in current production. I have the honour to be chairman of the all-party group on film; recently the noted film critic Barry Norman appeared before the working group. He told us that in the early 1980s he and Lord Puttnam speculated on the future of the British film industry in the 1980s and the early 1990s. They confidently predicted that cinemas would virtually disappear, except from our major cities. Barry Norman said with pleasure that they had been proved entirely wrong.
There has been a huge growth of multiplex cinemas and, most interestingly, that growth has been almost wholly supply driven. The more cinema screens there are,

the more people are prepared to go to the cinema. Perhaps, to misquote Kevin Costner in "Field of Dreams", "If you build them, they will come".
I deliberately quoted an American film because we are sometimes in danger of being too nationalist about the British film industry, and of adopting the more restrictive views of the French. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross pointed out, we have enjoyed the growth of English language films largely because of America. The more people go to the cinema and get into the habit of seeing films, the more they will see British films. As has correctly been pointed out, there is a steady growth in the number of English language films available and great enthusiasm for them in central Europe and the far east. That has nothing to do with the British film industry, but is related to the culture of Coca Cola, McDonald's and MTV.
As has been said, other things make this a good time to be involved in film production, especially the growth of video and the deregulation of terrestrial television—first in western Europe and then in central and eastern Europe—which offer many new channels for the use of film. If we add to that the growth in satellite television, digital television and digital video disc, we see that there are many ways in which those engaged in film production can receive additional returns on their money.
There are two particular factors that will help the British film industry. The first is the marketability of commercial, well put together English-language films. Hon. Members have referred to "The Full Monty"; that film grossed $35 million in the United States, and "Trainspotting" grossed $16.5 million. All the successful films of the past few years—"Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Secrets and Lies"—were produced with budgets of less than £3 million.
The second factor is that there is now more openness and friendliness from the US majors. That is not for wholly altruistic reasons; it is because there is a degree of nervousness about the creative process in Hollywood and a need to alleviate production costs. The growth of markets, the appetite for well-produced, low-budget films and the openness of the major companies make this a good time to be engaged in the British film industry.
There are, however, a number of problems, including the decline of the independents, referred to by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Most of the risks for independent film makers are passed on to distributors; the distributors' share, from which they take acquisition and marketing costs, is only about 27 per cent. of ticket sales and there has been an enormous decline in the number of those companies. Perhaps that is why the number of films produced in Britain has fallen: in 1996—only a few years ago—128 films were produced here, but now only 91 films are in production.
The world is starting to open up for the British film industry, but whether we refer to film as a cultural or an educational experience, we should recall the words of John Ford to the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest geniuses in the film industry in the 20th century, but he told the committee that his name was John Ford and he made westerns. That was an enormous understatement. What he meant was that no matter how artistic or educational a film might be, the strand running through all


films that make it—from those of the Lumière brothers, through those of David Lean and John Ford and "Star Wars"—is that they entertain and have a good narrative. I believe that the British film industry now has a good narrative and I am sure that all Members of the House wish it success.

Mr. David Lepper: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate and, as other hon. Members have done, on the work that he has done over the years to develop policy to support and encourage the British film industry. I am sure that his all-embracing and trenchant analysis this morning will be taken to heart far beyond the rather small audience in this place. I also declare my own interest—which is in the register—as a trustee of Lighthouse Media Training, a company based in Brighton which trains the new generation of film makers to whose importance hon. Members have referred.
Hon. Members will be aware of the part played by Brighton—the area which I represent—in the history of the British film industry. If things had been slightly different in about 1906, we might now be referring to Brighton rather than Hollywood as the centre of world's film industry. History moves on, but Brighton has retained that vital connection with the film industry over the years. Only a few weeks ago, some of us had the pleasure of joining Lord Attenborough for the 50th celebration of the first showing of "Brighton Rock". The image of Brighton that has developed through the cinema has helped to make the town the tourist attraction it is. If hon. Members want to explore that early film history, I draw their attention to the excellent southern regional film archive, supervised by Frank Gray, and the exhibitions at Hove museum.
I do not want to dwell on the past; I want dwell on the present and the future. This morning, although my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) alluded to it, we have not heard much about the importance of our film industry to our regional economies. I come from the south-east region—the Government office of the south-east region—which includes Pinewood and Bray studios and we are fortunate that the southern screen commission is based in our region. The commission is one of the network of 24 regional film commissions, based on the model developed by the New York film commission shortly after the second world war, to co-ordinate the industry in their areas and to attract location shooting. Gerard Rosenberg, the screen commissioner based in Brighton, estimates that in the first year of its existence—1996–97—the commission succeeded in attracting about £6.5 million in additional production spending to the region.
Many people who work in the media live in the Brighton area. Some figures suggest that Los Angeles is the only place in the world where a higher proportion of the population are employed in the media. While I cannot vouch for the reliability of those figures, a great difference is that media workers in Los Angeles, by and large, do not have to leave Los Angeles unless they are working on location. However, media workers who live in the Brighton and Hove area must often go elsewhere to work as film or television technicians. It seems to me that the

network of regional film commissions can play a vital role in attracting location filming to the country's regions—my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley estimated the knock-on benefits to the local economy, including the spin-offs in terms of attracting tourists.
The authors of "A Bigger Picture", which has been referred to many times this morning, set out a specific role for the regional film commissions, referring to them as sources of up-to-date information about the industry and for the industry. The document talks about working with the industry in the regions and about the role that regional film commissions can play in training the next generation of film makers. The document also contains the important statement:
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will work closely with the British Film Commission and the UK Film Commission Network to assure the future role and funding of regional film commissions".
I conclude my brief contribution by asking the Minister to describe what she believes to be the future of regional film commissions—particularly working in conjunction with regional development agencies. Perhaps she will comment specifically on the promise, which I believe is made in "A Bigger Picture", of Government support for the film commissions.

Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate this morning about an industry that has real cultural, historic and economic importance. The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge and understanding of the film industry are exceptional. He was the driving force behind the report of the film policy review group, "A Bigger Picture". It is a matter of regret that that report did not receive a proper airing in the House at the time of its publication, so today's debate is especially welcome.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who is a real film buff, and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who followed in a family tradition. One of the central reasons for our continued success in obtaining Oscars and British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards is the creative genius of our people and their love and appreciation of acting and the theatre.
Turning to the current state of the industry, we must examine several areas this morning. The new umbrella body of the film industry, British Film, will begin in April 2000 distributing approximately £27 million of lottery money each year. It will seek to develop a strategy for the industry. However, British Screen will maintain its private sector status and the British Film Institute will retain its charitable status, pursuing educational and cultural objectives. It is unclear what relationship the British Film Commission will have with British Film.
I realise that we are a year away from the target date, but it is difficult to understand at this point exactly what roles these bodies will play and to what extent the proposed new structure will be streamlined and produce clear benefits. I hope that the Minister will expand on those interconnecting corporate relationships when she responds to the debate.
One of our greatest national success stories is our film skills base. For many years, British individuals have scooped awards for technical skills all over the world.


That is a remarkable achievement. However, the Minister will know that there is considerable and genuine concern in the industry about the future of training in this country, which appears to be under pressure. I understand that Lord Puttnam has expressed his anxieties directly to the Secretary of State. This is the seed corn for the future of the industry, but only 32 students are currently taking film and television freelance training courses.
I shall give an example of the difficulties being experienced. In the field of creative writing, the Television Arts Performance Showcase—TAPS—has said that it can remain open for only another two months without some form of Government or lottery funding. It has been one of the most successful developers of new talent in the film and broadcasting industries.
The Government responded to this type of problem by founding Skillset, which was established with a training remit to all media industries. However, many of the training opportunities provided by Skillset are on the technical rather than the creative side of the industry. Do the Government consider that a more flexible approach to funding criteria may be appropriate?
In July 1997, the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a 100 per cent. tax write-off on expenditure on the production of films up to £15 million. Will the Minister indicate for precisely how long that write-off has been guaranteed? I am not clear about that point. Will the Minister also confirm to the House how many new films have been made under section 48 legislation? I fear that she already knows the answer: sadly, it is none. The reason is that the statement of practice was issued some 18 months after the write-off was promulgated in July 1997. Its implementation by the Treasury has, regrettably, been a fiasco.
Meanwhile only one large production is currently being filmed in this country: the new James Bond film at Pinewood. We have a high cost structure in the United Kingdom. Why does the Minister think that we are unable to attract large productions to this country? The spin-offs are obvious. Has she discussed with the Treasury the £15 million cut-off and whether that is the right level for this tax concession? Tax rules for employee travel expenses were introduced in April 1998, to undisguised dismay in the industry. It is estimated that the majority of the industry's employees work as freelancers on short-term contracts of typically a few weeks' or months' duration.
Herein lies the irony: the Treasury has given a tax write-off concession for production, but has hurt the people employed in the industry. Under Treasury rules, producers must gross up expenses payments in order to allow for income tax and national insurance. That occurs only if the film is being shot in the United Kingdom. If it is being filmed in Ireland or France, the producer will not have to gross up expenses, so costs are much less. Despite assistance from Treasury officials, that remains a considerable problem.
I would also be grateful to hear the Minister's views on how the working time directive will impact on film making in Britain. I was disappointed that, in a written reply to me on 22 February, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), indicated that no specific assessment had been made of the impact on film making. Our concern is obvious. What discussions has the Minister

had with the Department of Trade and Industry about minimising any potential damage that the directive may cause?
Let us turn briefly to the role of the lottery in funding British films. The emphasis thus far has clearly been on the production side. There must be a balance between commercially viable films and culturally significant productions. Several films produced with lottery money have not been box office successes, to say the least. I understand that box office receipts cannot be viewed as the sole and exclusive criterion for judging a film's success, but there must be an appropriate balance. After all, it is the people's money and there is always a risk of lottery fatigue—which may have started already.
I know that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston will agree that the success of American films is substantially due to the structure of their industry, which invariably includes production and distribution. We simply lack a vertical approach. I hope that British Film will tackle that problem. However, I point out to the Minister that there may be an imbalance in the provision of lottery funding in favour of production rather than distribution. Ultimately, of course, the market will determine the success or failure of a film, no matter what the Government or lottery distributor may want.
This is a wide subject and I have sought only to touch on issues that are now of concern to the industry. We make brilliant films such as "The Full Monty", "Chariots of Fire" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral", and we feel proud of their success. When our actors and actresses triumph, we share their delight, and we salute the quality of our technical expertise here and abroad. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston has done a great deal to highlight the industry and to seek to put it on a more sustainable path, away from the rather roller-coaster ride that it has always had. However, the jury is out on the future of the industry.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate this morning, and I look forward to the Minister's response to the issues that have been raised.

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): In the short time left, I shall try to deal with as many points as possible. First and foremost, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) for securing the debate and bringing to the House his knowledge, expertise and enthusiasm for the film industry, which it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any of us to match.
I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend's achievement in bringing to a successful conclusion the film policy review, "A Bigger Picture", which now underpins Government film policy. His was the most thorough and imaginative review for many years. It was a partnership with the industry, and working with his co-chairman, Stewart Till of Polygram Filmed Entertainment, my right hon. Friend managed to secure broad agreement to a blueprint for the future development of the British film industry. I have the privilege of implementing that blueprint, and I thank him for giving me that opportunity.
I shall briefly refer to some of the contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned all the connections that her


constituency and the surrounding Pennines have with the film industry. She referred particularly to the spin-off in tourism. She will know—if I may refer to this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the tourism strategy that we produced on Friday specifically mentioned that relationship and the benefits to the local and the national economy.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred to his family connection with "Yanks". There cannot be any hon. Member who does not have such a connection. I thank him for his contribution. He referred to the curse of Cannes, and I assure him that I am well aware of it.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the way in which we competing with other countries in attracting film makers. He is right—New Zealand, Australia, Ireland and the Isle of Man are all passionate about that. We must match their enthusiasm and I hope that we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) referred to the recent 50th anniversary celebrations of "Brighton Rock", which starred our noble Friend Lord Attenborough, and Brighton's links with the industry. He referred particularly to the role of the regional commissions, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their excellent work in facilitating film making in their areas. Following the departmental spending review, we are closely examining the relationship that they will have with regional development agencies and other regional structures because, as he rightly said, that is very important.
I shall do my best to answer the questions of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). He referred to the structure of British Film, although I am not sure that the organisation will be called that because we have not yet made a final decision on that. He asked what roles the various bodies would play. We are concerned to make sure that the new body brings together the cultural and industrial sections of British film and we shall, I hope, make an announcement very soon. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Attenborough's contribution to that process, for which we are grateful.
I shall try to deal with most of the hon. Gentleman's questions, but if I do not, I will write to him. On the working time directive, I understand from colleagues and friends in the industry that they are relaxed about the directive and do not expect it to present them with huge problems, but of course we shall keep an eye on that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston set out clearly the objectives of "A Bigger Picture", and I reassure him that we have made substantial progress on many of its proposals.
Many hon. Members have referred to a continuing dialogue with the Treasury. I assure them that that dialogue is continuing, and a fax will be winging its way to the Treasury this afternoon to emphasise the importance of the current tax concession. We want to examine how that is working, and if I have time, I will deal with that. Various hon. Members mentioned that there was no evidence that British film had benefited from the concession, but I can tell the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that I have lists, provided by Ernst and Young, of films that are being produced or are about to be produced which have benefited from it. Ernst and

Young told me the other day that it has a number of investors who are investing in British film precisely because of the concession.

Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Lady place the list in the Library?

Janet Anderson: I certainly shall place the list in the Library and give the hon. Gentleman the information that he needs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston mentioned cine-literacy. That is important, and we are having discussions with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment about it. We shall also need, as he rightly pointed out, to clarify the relationship with our Scottish colleagues following the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.
On the Oreja report, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, I reassure him that we broadly agree with the recommendations, but we are waiting for the more detailed proposals from the European Commission, which we shall study very carefully.
Overseas earnings by UK film companies reached a record level of almost £700 million in 1996 and 1997. British films captured their highest share of the home market for many years—23 per cent. in 1997, which was almost double their share in 1996. We know that in this country there is an intense interest in the whole world of film, and cinema admissions and takings are at their highest levels. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston in congratulating all those who have been involved in the success of British film, particularly Duncan Kenworthy, who recently received the OBE. I join my right hon. Friend in wishing him well with his forthcoming film, "Notting Hill".
It will be difficult to fit all my points into the remaining time, so I shall try to concentrate on the main issues. The fundamental problem identified in "A Bigger Picture" remains; the UK industry is fragmented and there is a problem in the separation of production and distribution. Indeed, some now believe that our attention should be turned away from production and towards distribution, and we understand that view. That is one of the reasons why we have been working with the industry to implement the recommendations of the film policy review. Our commitment to film was demonstrated in the Chancellor's first Budget. I mentioned our discussions with Ernst and Young, which will shortly announce plans fully to finance and produce its own £30-million slate of feature films in this country. I say to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that that is evidence that the tax incentive is working.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston mentioned the need to work together. The action committee, which I continue to chair with Stewart Till, brought together everyone in the industry, including those from video and broadcasting, which is very important. A British Film Office has been established in Los Angeles. The Film Finance Forum, to improve links with the City of London, is up and running, and progress reports are encouraging. Film Export UK, a new trade association, has been established to help to promote the international sales of British film, and the film education working group has been set up.
I have very little time left, so I shall briefly mention the all-industry fund and the skills investment fund. We undertook a cost-benefit analysis on the all-industry fund, which demonstrated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the debate in the name of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten).

Noise-induced Hearing Loss

Mr. Mark Oaten: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of war veterans who suffer from noise-induced hearing loss as a direct result of their service and who are campaigning to get their war pensions reinstated for this disability. I must make it clear at the outset that it is certainly not my intention to attack the Government; I simply want to keep the issue alive, perhaps push the Minister slightly if I can, and probe the Government's current thinking on the issue.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), for the courtesy that he has shown me in the past couple of days, and especially for giving me as much warning as he could of the Government's announcement yesterday that they have, sadly, rejected some new medical evidence in this connection. At best, that has made today's debate topical; at worst, it probably means that my researcher had a very late night last night.
I know that the issue is of concern to many hon. Members. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), who is in the Chamber, tabled an early-day motion which has received cross-party support from, I think, upwards of 60 Members of Parliament. Certainly, many of our constituents are concerned.
When I take up such issues for war veterans, I sometimes feel guilty that, as a young Member of Parliament, I have very little idea of what it must have been like for them to go through the wars in which they fought. These days, we regard war as very much a high-tech affair involving computers, and we assume that the loud noises and their impact have been greatly reduced. To a large extent, that is true. It is only by watching films such as "Saving Private Ryan" that I can begin to understand what it must have been like to experience what many of our constituents experienced.
I spoke to a constituent, Major Cassidy, who has retired, who told me of his experience of being in the armed forces for 47 years. When he joined the Army and first began firing rifles and using tanks, there was absolutely no noise protection. In fact, it was only when the Army adopted a great new invention—cotton wool—that any protection techniques were put in place. I understand, however, that even that proved counter-productive.
Let me give some background to the issue. Originally, the war pension regulations were interpreted in such a way that claimants would be compensated if, when leaving the services, they suffered a 20 per cent. loss of hearing as a result of excessive noise encountered during their service. In addition, those who had suffered lesser but notable hearing loss would be entitled to a rising increment in benefit over time as they, too, approached the 20 per cent. level. At the time, it was clearly acknowledged that noise encountered during their military service made premature deafness much more probable.
In 1996, the Conservative Government decided to introduce new medical evidence. They believed that that evidence showed that further deterioration in hearing loss was due to other factors, such as getting old, and had nothing to do with the individuals' exposure to noise


during their service. As a result of that medical evidence, the regulations were changed. That decision has meant that people person can receive a war pension only if they are deemed to have reached the qualifying level of deafness at the point at which they left the service. That qualifying level is set at 50 decibels. Many experts believe that that level is too high anyway. Indeed, the Irish Republic has a qualifying level of just 20 decibels.
The result of the change introduced by the previous Government means that very few veterans now qualify for the war pension for deafness. In fact, more than 90 per cent. are turned down because they fail to reach the qualifying level. The Royal British Legion estimates that that means that around 8,000 new claimants a year are denied the pension. As a result of the change, the Treasury reckoned that it would save around £35 million a year.
When the change was announced, there was, quite rightly, a storm of criticism. Indeed, at the stormy Prime Minister's Question Time on 5 December 1996, the then Leader of the Opposition—now the Prime Minister—described the changes as "shabby and mean-minded". Similarly, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), then a shadow Defence Minister, stated that the change ran against
all conventional medical evidence and is a smokescreen to save money.
It would be cheap and churlish of me to throw those remarks back at the new Labour Government without acknowledging that they have kept their election promise to review the situation. I commend the Government on having always been open to the issue. They seem to accept the fact that it is a source of controversy and that new medical evidence could dispute the change to the regulations made by the previous Government.
Indeed, an independent review, chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, the chief medical officer, was set up not long after the new Government took office. It concluded, as previous reviews had, that current medical evidence showed that increases in hearing loss after service were not due to initial noise exposure during service, but there was certainly controversy about its findings. Some believe that the terms of reference of that inquiry were restricted to a narrow consideration of the effects on hearing threshold levels, so that the contentious issue of how that relates to hearing disability was excluded. They argue that, because of that remit, the existing regulations were always likely to be the outcome of the process.

Mr. Brian Cotter: I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend has many constituents who are in the 15 to 20 per cent. category of hearing loss. It seems unfair that they are ruled out although they are close to the 20 per cent. threshold. I hope that the Minister will consider that.

Mr. Oaten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I, too, hope that the Minister will respond to that point. There is certainly a sense that it is rather "mean-minded", to quote the Prime Minister, and calculating to have to differentiate between those who have reached a 15, 20 or 30 per cent. threshold.
To their credit, the Government have been prepared to pursue the issue and have considered new medical evidence. A further review has been undertaken. It included

the work of Professor Davis, whose two recent papers called into question the current terms of reference and suggested that further research was needed. Yesterday, the Government announced that, based on the new research, they had concluded that the further evidence
does not meet the standard required to raise a reasonable doubt",
and they were rejecting the current medical evidence.
I shall not go into detail on the findings or question the medical background to them, but I ask the Minister to look carefully at the detail and conclusions of that work. Paragraph 5.7 of the conclusions states:
Longitudinal studies in humans may finally resolve the age/noise interaction question but only if they have large numbers and well characterised populations, followed for an adequate period. Such undertaking in relation to a topic which is subject of an International Standard will need very careful consideration.
The medical evidence that the Government have considered and the review itself raise some serious doubts. I put it to the Minister that that section alone suggests that we need to keep an open mind. It certainly suggests to me that the scientists are saying that they cannot be sure at this stage and that a longer period of research is needed.
The point that the Government should take on board is that today's pensioners do not have the time to wait for such research. A five or 10-year period of research means that today's war pensioners will not see a successful outcome. Surely it would be right for the Government to act now and to give those pensioners the benefit of the doubt. It will be of no comfort to them if, in five or 10 years' time, new research proves that they were right, because they will not be around.
I remind the Minister that, under the Irish scheme, the qualifying level is much lower. Critically, the Irish Government's decision was based on the very same medical evidence that our Government used to come to their conclusion. That suggests that their stance is too rigid.
I urge the Minister to remember the human perspective. It is often very easy to get bogged down in complicated medical evidence, but in this case it is important to remember the difference between hearing impairment and hearing disability. I press the Minister to note that thousands of war veterans who suffer from noise-induced hearing loss have what should be described and known as a disability, not a hearing impediment. The thousands of veterans who suffer from noise-induced hearing loss fought for our country and deserve a great deal more from Governments. They should, in the circumstances, be given the benefit of the doubt, and extra help in their old age. They deserve a better deal.
I hope that the Government will give a commitment to keeping an open mind, as I have acknowledged they have to date on this issue, and will review new research as it comes along. Would it not be better for the Minister to announce today that he is prepared to reinstate the pension until the review is completed and the Government can be definite about the fact that the new research has ruled out the possible link? Although the Government have kept their election promise to review the research, their response to the issue has been too cautious, too rigid and, perhaps, as the Prime Minister said, "mean-minded".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on securing a


debate on this very important issue, and thank him for his kind remarks at the start of his speech. The last time that I spoke immediately after him in this Chamber was following his maiden speech—I do not know whether he recalls this—when he had a majority of two. Now, his majority is more than 20,000, so he clearly knows how to build support for his cause and those he advocates. I stand warned of the persistence that I am likely to face on this issue. He marshalled the arguments well, and I shall do my best to respond to them.
I shall start by referring to the issue with which the hon. Gentleman concluded: the human dimension. I pay tribute to all the men and women who were killed or injured in service in the armed forces. Members of my generation must remember at all times that the democratic liberties that we enjoy in this country—and our freedom in the House as Members of Parliament—were secured by the sacrifices of earlier generations in two world wars. I also recognise the vital role played by ex-service organisations, such as the Royal British Legion and the Royal British Legion Scotland, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society and the War Widows Association of Great Britain.
As the hon. Member for Winchester knows, yesterday we made public the outcome of the further review of the evidence on the relationship between age-related and noise-induced hearing loss. We received the report only on Friday, but wanted to make it available before today's debate.
The conclusion of the further review is that there is no new reliable evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that hearing losses due to noise and age are more than additive. The legal standard of proof required in this field is reasonable doubt. The same conclusion was reached last year by the expert panel. Before I turn to the points raised by the hon. Members for Winchester and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), it may be helpful to put the review in context.
The war pension scheme makes provision for a pension to be paid for any disablement attributable to, or aggravated by, service, whether in time of peace or war. The basic war pension is set at a higher rate than the social security equivalent—industrial injuries disablement benefit. In addition, the war pension scheme provides a wide range of allowances which may be paid in addition to the basic disablement pension. Those allowances are available in respect of such things as increasing age, reduced or lost earnings capability, and care and mobility needs. The scheme provides pensions for the widows and children of people who die as a result of their service.
To illustrate the advantage, a single, severely disabled war pensioner could receive more than £400 a week. Under the nearest comparator, the industrial injuries scheme, a person similarly injured at work would receive £55 a week less. A person with a similar disablement that is unrelated to employment, who receives incapacity benefit and disability living allowance, receives just over £165 a week—almost £235 less than the war pensioner.
All war pensions and allowances are tax free. They may be paid on top of the ex-service man or woman's earnings in civilian life, and on top of the state retirement pension. They may also be paid in addition to the pension paid under the Ministry of Defence armed forces pension scheme.
Some people question the preference given to war pensioners. I do not; it is wholly right that the sacrifice of those injured or killed in defending the country should be specially recognised. But such preferential treatment must depend on a clear link between disablement and military service. That is why, under the war pensions scheme, a pension is paid only for disablements that arise from service. It is not paid for disablements that arise from other causes, including natural processes, such as ageing. That rule dates from the very start of the scheme.
There can, of course, be many causes of hearing loss. Often, several types of loss are present in one person. We must view each separately because they are different medical conditions. Some hearing loss may be due to service, such as exposure to noise. Other loss has nothing to do with service; for instance, most people suffer from hearing loss as they get older.
More than half of all living ex-service people served as conscripts during the second world war or in national service. That means that they left the forces at least 35 years ago. The very youngest are close to retirement age, but most are considerably older. The average age of a war disablement pensioner is over 75. Anyone in this age group will be starting to feel the effects of time, and may suffer from diseases that we expect to find in a person of pension age, regardless of whether he or she was once in the armed forces. Considering whether such a disease might be due to experiences in service more than half a lifetime earlier can make deciding claims difficult. We must maintain the integrity of the scheme, and that means insisting on the link to service.
When we came to office, the Government immediately set up a review. The hon. Member for Winchester made comments about pledges made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. We promised a review and, as soon as we were elected, we set one up. It considered the evidence on hearing loss, and involved a range of eminent experts. We quickly communicated the outcome of that first review to the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions—the advisory body on the subject. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hollis, the Minister with special responsibility for war pensions, met representatives of the Royal British Legion and the Royal British Legion Scotland to brief them on the matter.
The independent experts told us last year that hearing loss due to noise damage does not get worse after leaving the noise. They also said that hearing loss caused by noise does not increase as age-related loss is added to it.

Mr. Oaten: Does the Minister acknowledge that the most recent study has suggested that we need more time to clarify the research, and that, until we have a five-year or, perhaps, 10-year study, we cannot be absolutely sure about the outcome?

Mr. Bayley: I do not accept the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman draws from the latest study. The latest study reviewed a wide range of evidence, including 56 academic, independently reviewed papers, which have been outstanding for some time, certainly since the last review; two new papers by Mills and Miller, which were written in the past year and published in referred journals; and two papers from Professor Davis, a statistician and eminent scientist working at Nottingham university's


Institute of Hearing. Professor Davis's papers reflected work in progress which suggested that, when the research was completed, a different conclusion could be drawn. One needs to set that against the bulk of the evidence—50 or so papers that point in an alternative direction.
The hon. Member for Winchester asked me whether the Government would give a commitment to keep an open mind. We certainly will. When the studies in which Professor Davis is engaged are published in refereed journals and his research is complete, we will look at that evidence. If it changes the balance of opinion, or suggests new lines of inquiry, we will follow those.

Mr. Oaten: If, in two or three years, different evidence came through and the Government decided that, on the balance of that evidence, they wished to change their view, would they consider retrospective payments to pensioners who, in the intervening time, had not received the payments? Would it not be easier to give them the benefit of the doubt now, rather than face the potential retrospective element when future evidence is considered?

Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman gives an interesting hypothetical example, but he will understand why I am not drawn to it. The overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence—all the evidence apart from the new work by Professor Davis—points in one direction. A clear scientific conclusion is drawn from that evidence: hearing loss as a result of age is no more than additive to hearing loss that was caused earlier through exposure to noise. We must base our policy on the scientific and medical evidence. Of course we keep an open mind. We are aware of Professor Davis's work. We will look at that work and review the body of knowledge when his work is completed and formally published.
The review that was published yesterday involved an exhaustive search of the literature and was conducted by asking eminent experts, including those on the review panel last year—one of whom, of course, was Professor Davis—for their advice on the existence of any relevant evidence, and by carefully scrutinising that evidence. The conclusion of the further review is that no new evidence changes last year's findings by the expert team. I realise that that may be a disappointment, but we can, and should, proceed only on the basis of scientific evidence.
The hon. Member for Winchester raised several specific points. As he knows, in 1993, the war pensions scheme was amended to introduce a 20 per cent. "cut-off" below which an award would not be made for noise-induced hearing loss. As he told the House, previously, a lump sum gratuity was paid for losses at that level. The change brought the war pensions scheme more into line with the rules for occupational deafness under the industrial injuries scheme.
There are still considerable advantages in war pensions. For example, a claim may be made at any time and regardless of length of service. Under the occupational deafness scheme, the individual has to have worked for 10 years at least in a noisy occupation and the claim has to be made within five years of leaving that occupation.
The 20 per cent. "cut-off" was part of a package that included extra cash for war pensioners. As a result of it, from 12 April 1993, almost 250,000 war pensioners gained up to £5 a week on top of the usual uprating for the most severely disabled. It was the lower ranks who gained the most.
The hon. Member for Winchester asked me to consider whether 50 decibels is the right point at which to trigger a war pension. Fifty decibels is the point at which a person starts to have trouble following conversation in a noisy environment. We believe that that level, which has been used for a long time, is appropriate when we consider the percentage level of disability that is used in relation to other injuries and conditions.

Mr. Cotter: I wonder why—we have a close example—the Irish Government have taken a different stance on the decibel level.

Mr. Bayley: I imagine that all Governments use different standards. I have not looked at that aspect of the Irish scheme. I will look at the point and write perhaps to the hon. Member for Winchester.
I was asked why one should establish a cut-off, not just for hearing loss, but for any injury, at the 20 per cent. level. We could say that we would have a difficulty whether the cut-off was 15, 20 or 25 per cent. We could have the same argument about someone just above or below any of those cut-off points, but the reason why the 20 per cent. level is chosen is because it is used elsewhere in legislation, particularly in relation to the industrial injuries scheme. It seemed sensible to use that level as a benchmark.
The hon. Member for Winchester asked us to reinstate pensions until the position was clearer. I must be frank with him. Before the general election, we believed that the position was unclear because thorough reviews had not been made public. Since the election, we have conducted two thorough reviews of the scientific evidence, and it is clear—I make the point in relation to the Irish scheme—that, under the international standard used for medico-legal purposes, lower-level hearing losses of the sort that we are discussing are not eligible for compensation.
Therefore, although I will look at the Irish scheme and write to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that the changes that were introduced in 1993 brought British war pensions scheme practice into line with the rules for occupational deafness under the industrial injuries scheme.
When we came to office, we promised to undertake a review. That was done promptly and on time. One of the conclusions of the review was that there should be a further study. That has now taken place. It has confirmed the results of the first review.
Both reviews were undertaken in a totally professional manner, were informed by eminent experts and considered all the relevant evidence on the subject. We closely monitor medical and scientific evidence on any matter that may affect entitlement to a war pension. Of course, we will continue to do so for injuries relating to hearing loss.
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for raising the matter. It is important. I am particularly glad that the timing of the debate was closely linked to the publication of the review report.

Health and Safety Executive

Mr. George Galloway: The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), and I go back a long way. We share a strong commitment to health and safety at work and a sense of horror at some of the casualties that have been inflicted by careless or negligent employers on the battlefield which so much of the British industrial landscape has become. Almost 20 years of attrition against trade unions and the rights of workers to refuse hazardous employment conditions, and deregulation posing as a bonfire of red tape, have, in reality, represented the burning down of standards that responsible government and representative trade unionism took the best part of a century to construct.
I applied for this debate after reading the award-winning journalist, Seamus Milne, in The Guardian, and later in the "Big Issue", on the manslaughter of Simon Jones, a 24-year-old man who was killed on 24 April 1998 on his first day as a casual worker at a privately owned wharf at Shoreham docks. However, Simon was no dock worker. Driven by the jobseeker's allowance scheme, he was sent to his death by a company called Personnel Selection. This company undoubtedly failed in its statutory duty to ensure its client's suitability for the job to which it was sending him and to provide the written terms and conditions of the job.
The company sent him to the docks and into the hands of a cowboy company called EUROMIN, of ultimately Dutch ownership—and with a low reputation even in the jungle that is the deregulated dock industry, 10 years after the abolition of the dock labour scheme, for whose retention some of us—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I included—fought tooth and nail in this place. We warned then that casualisation kills. Simon Jones is just one of the mute witnesses to that truth.
Simon was taking a year off from Sussex university when he was killed. He died, almost decapitated by the grab of a crane, only two hours after starting work, and after only a two-minute briefing on what the job entailed. That two minutes was meant to equip him with the skills of a stevedore, one of Britain's five most dangerous occupations.
The reality in some of Britain's docks, illuminated by the case of Simon Jones, is like a still from Elia Kazan's epic film "On the Waterfront". Simon was put to work in the hold of a ship called the Cambrook, hooking bags of cobbles on to chains which had been welded to the inside of the crane's open grab. There was no need for a grab for that sort of cargo and the chains should have been attached to a hook instead. However, changing back and forth between hook and grab costs time and money.
With Simon and his workmate, Sean Currey, was just one crew member, a Pole who spoke no English, yet he was acting as banksman, guiding the crane driver. The banksman is supposed to communicate with the driver and monitor what is happening in the hold. Not only did the banksman not speak English, but even his hand signals were foreign to the crane driver. Moreover, from where he was standing he could not even see into the hold.
The grab and chains were brought in too low over the hold and the grab was accidentally closed on Mr. Jones's head. Only the chains prevented it shutting completely.

Sean Currey, who had nightmares for months afterwards, was asked later to clean the blood and remains of Simon off the bags of stones so that they could be sold. He was sent home for the day without pay for refusing to do so.
The general manager of EUROMIN, James Martell, was arrested by the police after the accident but released without charge. Last month, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to charge EUROMIN or Martell with manslaughter because of insufficient evidence. Under pressure from Simon's family and their admirable campaign, the CPS is reviewing that decision and a final ruling is expected this week.
I have to tell the House that, according to Sean Currey, Mr. Martell—who is, in legal terms, undoubtedly the controlling mind of this company's UK activities—laughed out loud when told that he could face prosecution. Martell, who has not so much as sent two lines of condolences to his victim's family, has the blood of Simon Jones on his hands. Martell's contempt for the laws of health and safety in this country, his greed and hunger for profit and his negligence and carelessness slaughtered a young man just as clearly as if he had pushed him off the dock with his own hands.
In a way, Martell was right to laugh, because the chances of his ever being properly held to account were and are laughably small. Life is cheap on the British waterfront and in many of the privatised and deregulated sweatshops of which the previous Government boasted. That is the true legacy of the Thatcher era.
The average fine levied upon employers following fatal industrial accidents is less than £2,000. Unbelievably, it is cheaper to be fined for having caused the death of an employee than to take the necessary precautions for the avoidance of that death. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said on the BBC last year:
I am absolutely outraged at penalties that perhaps are as little as £2,500, which I believe are derisory and insulting when awarded in the case of death or serious injury".
The whole House will welcome the Government's massive increase of 17 per cent. in expenditure on the Health and Safety Executive, which will produce an extra £4.5 million this year. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said at the time:
I would be the first to say I think these significant increases are not enough.
The Government themselves admit that the money that we plan to spend on health and safety enforcement is not enough and that fines levied upon killer companies are often derisory and insulting. The question that needs to be asked and answered therefore is what more we can do and when we will be able to do it.
According to Gary Slapper, law director of the Open university, official figures for deaths at work massively underestimate the real number. Dr. Slapper argues that about 20 per cent. of such deaths present good prima facie cases for charges of manslaughter against the employers responsible, but such charges are rarely brought. Twenty per cent. would translate into about 90 prosecutions a year—that is two every working week. That contrasts with the actual rate of two prosecutions every 30 years.
The new offence of corporate killing, on which the Government are consulting, would be a step forward in cases where criminal negligence by employers causes deaths at work. It would allow companies to be fined at a much higher level than that allowed for breaching existing


health and safety law. However, I believe that even high fines are not a sufficient deterrent for many rogue employers. Some would merely put their companies into liquidation rather than pay the fines. For others, even high fines would represent a scintilla of the high profits generated in part by the reckless cutting of corners.
I believe that only the imprisonment of directors of companies found to be responsible for such negligence would have a deterrent effect. After all, people are not fined for committing manslaughter outside the work place; they go to prison, sometimes for several years. As Professor Charles Woolfson from Glasgow university in my constituency put it, "When one goes down, the others sit up."
On the basis of an exhaustive three-year study, Dr. Slapper believes that many more charges of manslaughter could be brought, even under existing legislation, were it not for the fact that the prosecuting authorities are more lenient towards those engaged in business.
The Stephen Lawrence campaign has been a real inspiration to those campaigning in the memory of Simon Jones. Although in the five long years of the Lawrence campaign Stephen's family have failed to obtain justice for their dead son, they have exposed the truth about institutional racism to everyone. The Simon Jones campaign hopes to be equally successful in ensuring that the truth about casualisation—that it is killing people for profits—is equally widely understood.
The Thatcher era proved to be a killing field for innocent victims of corporate failure, from Occidental's towering inferno of Piper Alpha, in which 160 workers perished, through the King's Cross fire, the Clapham and Putney rails disasters, the sinking of the Marchioness and the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise in the Zeebrugge disaster. Altogether over the past few years there have been more than 500 fatalities in major incidents and more than seven times as many individual deaths. In virtually all of those, management failure was deemed to be a central cause of the incident.
A study of 739 deaths in the building and civil engineering industries during just four years from 1981 to 1985—the depths of Thatcherism—concluded that, in 70 per cent. of cases, positive action by management could have saved lives. Studying a range of industries in the early 1990s, the HSE concluded that management was primarily responsible in 54 per cent. of cases, and that, in 70 per cent. of cases,
positive management action could have saved lives".
Most deaths through industrial negligence go virtually unreported. However, involvement with the Simon Jones campaign has shown me that such incidents not only destroy the lives of the victims, but tear apart the lives of their families and friends.
For some reason, workers in Scotland are a third more likely to die in workplace accidents than workers in the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1996–97, almost 30 Scottish workers died at work and another 12,000 were injured, more than 2,000 of them seriously. Last October, there was the case of Raymond Stevenson, a 28-year-old father of two who was overcome by toxic fumes and fell into a sludge pit that he had been ordered

to empty. Paisley sheriff court levied pitifully small fines on the contractor and the site operator. The fatal accident inquiry report noted that safety issues
were matters of little or no importance to senior management".
In 1997, Alan Dale, a 30-year-old married man, died of suffocation, buried alive at the bottom of a 29 ft deep bin containing concrete dust that he had been ordered to remove. The sheriff at the fatal accident inquiry, at Glasgow sheriff court, said that the tragedy could have been avoided if suitable rescue equipment had been available on site. The company was fined £1,000. Last year, John Curry, aged 37, was crushed to death when a tool rack fell on him, on Shell's Tern platform in the North sea. The company was fined £3,000.
William Veetch, a father of three in Cumnock, Ayrshire, died after being pulled into the rotating drum of a huge washing machine for washing coal. The company was fined £1,500. One of Mr. Veetch's sons said:
I just cannot believe my Dad's life is worth just £1,500.
None of that should be construed as an attack on the Health and Safety Executive. For years, it struggled to civilise Britain's industrial landscape, while starved of the necessary resources and operating in an atmosphere of thinly disguised hostility from Tory Governments who saw the executive's activities as just another burden on business. Now, that atmosphere has been dispelled by the Labour Government and a substantial increase in funding is forthcoming. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree that far more has to be done.
The HSE has a target of investigating one in five serious accidents in the workplace. I do not understand why its target should not be to investigate every serious accident in the workplace. Currently, however, the HSE is able to investigate only one in 20 serious accidents at work—only 5 per cent. of accidents that often involve the maiming, crippling or blinding of employees, and almost all of which mean that the victim will never work again. Thus, because of current investigation levels, more than 48,000 serious accidents every year go uninvestigated.
The Government should propose a clear timetable for progress in meeting the HSE target of investigating 20 per cent. of serious accidents in the workplace, and be ready to fund the level of inspectorate that meeting that target would require. The Government should reconsider the appallingly low level of fines levied in cases of serious accidents under current safety law, and speed the day when the new offence of corporate killing is added to the armoury of the law.
The Crown Prosecution Service should announce that Simon Jones's manslaughter will not go unprosecuted. EUROMIN and its bloodstained general manager, James Martell, must stand trial for the negligence that caused his death.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on securing this debate. He has always been a good soldier in the cause of workplace safety. I pay tribute to him not only for securing this debate, but for the many occasions throughout his political life, even before he was elected to the House, on which he has raised issues of workers


health and safety. I have listened with interest to the points that he made and assure him that—as he is fully aware—I and many of my colleagues in Government share many of his concerns.
I want first to respond to my hon. Friend's understandable concerns about the recent tragic death of Simon Jones. Nothing that I or any of my parliamentary colleagues say could make up for the loss to his family and friends, who have suffered deeply because of his death. As we are all aware, deaths at work cause immense distress. Anyone who has—as I have—witnessed someone being killed in the workplace will live with that memory for the remainder of his life. The loss of a young life such as Simon's is an appalling waste. My sympathies, and those of the Government, go out to his family.
On the day of the accident, health and safety inspectors visited the site to begin an investigation, and have since made several more visits to gather evidence about possible breaches of health and safety law by various parties. The company involved, EUROMIN, is a small one, importing aggregates and building materials. As my hon. Friend said, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a large Dutch company. Worryingly—as he also said—apparently the only person with any authority in the United Kingdom is its general manager, Mr. Martell. As one would expect, the Health and Safety Executive has worked closely with Sussex police, who have investigated possible manslaughter charges against the company and, of course, its general manager, Mr. Martell.
A report has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, for it to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution for manslaughter. Contrary to what has been said, the CPS decision is still awaited by my Department. My understanding is that a decision has not yet been taken. If the CPS decides that the evidence would not support a prosecution for manslaughter, the Health and Safety Executive could—indeed, would—consider taking legal action under health and safety legislation.
I also advise my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members interested in the matter, that health and safety investigators have issued enforcement notices. Inspectors issued two prohibition notices preventing use of the excavator involved in the accident. For the benefit of hon. Members who may read the debate in Hansard, I should say that prohibition notices may be issued on the spot by inspectors if they believe that a work activity or a process poses a serious risk to workers. Failure to comply with a prohibition notice is a breach of the law.
In this case, health and safety inspectors also issued an improvement notice on provision of information, instructions, training and, of course, supervision. The issuing of improvement notices means that the inspectors require employers or other duty holders to take action to improve health and safety standards within a specified time scale. Compliance with those notices is regularly checked by HSE inspectors.
The Department of Trade and Industry has looked into the conduct of the employment agency involved. The employment agency standards inspectorate can take action under the legislation governing the conduct of employment agencies. The inspectorate gave serious consideration to the case, but unfortunately it concluded that there was no realistic possibility that a charge of

breaches of the relevant regulations could be sustained. The DTI will shortly issue a consultative document on revised regulations governing the conduct of employment agencies. Any lessons learned from the Simon Jones case will be taken into account in the review.
My hon. Friend mentioned penalties. My colleagues and I are working hard to ensure that those guilty of breaking health and safety law are appropriately punished. The Law Commission has recommended replacing the existing law of involuntary manslaughter in England and Wales with new offences by individuals of reckless killing and killing by gross carelessness, as well as an offence of corporate manslaughter.
The Government are considering how best to take forward the Law Commission's recommendations. I would support the introduction of such offences. The Crown Prosecution Service recently charged Great Western Trains with seven offences of manslaughter through gross negligence, following the Southall rail crash. The case is scheduled at Ealing magistrates court on 25 March. The magistrates are expected to refer the case to a higher court.
I assure my hon. Friend that, when appropriate, the HSE will not hesitate to prosecute those who break the law. The number of prosecutions by the HSE has risen in recent years, from 1,500 in 1996–97 to 1,700 in 1997–98 and an estimated 1,900 this year. The HSE does not set targets for its enforcement activity, but it forecasts that the current level of prosecutions will be at least maintained. In recent years it has secured a success rate of 75 to 80 per cent. for the cases that it has taken action on under health and safety law.
The recent Howe judgment in the Court of Appeal said that fines for health and safety offences were too low and emphasised the seriousness with which breaches of the law should be considered. The judgment said that fines must be large enough to bring home to management and shareholders that they must provide a safe environment for all their workers.
There are already encouraging signs that the judgment has had an effect in recent health and safety cases. An NHS trust was recently fined four times the average amount following a death on its property. In passing sentence, the judge said that the Howe judgment was helpful in determining the fine. More recently, significant fines were awarded in the Heathrow airport tunnel case. The firm involved was fined a record sum in excess of £2 million.
The Government strongly support the work of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. We are determined to give health and safety a higher profile than it had under the previous Administration. We are determined to raise the level of safety awareness and to drive up standards in every workplace.
Employees and the public rightly expect high standards of health and safety protection. Accidents at work and occupational ill health are neither inevitable nor acceptable. A healthy and well-protected work force is not only right, it is good for business and good for society. I want and expect industry to regard decent health and safety standards as the gateway to their prosperity.
We have a solid foundation from which to progress. The commission, the executive and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 have delivered significant improvements in standards of health and safety at work


over the past 25 years. Our rate of workplace fatal injury is now lower than in all other European Union member states. Our unique tripartite approach to health and safety is widely acknowledged at home and on the international stage. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. Workers continue to suffer serious injury and ill health—and death, in the case of Simon Jones. There is still much to be done and we shall do more.
The Government are showing their strong practical commitment to the commission and executive by increasing their resources. We have already provided an extra £4.5 million to support their running costs in 1998–99. The budget will increase by £13 million in 1999–2000 and by a further £23 million and £27 million in the following two years. That extra funding will allow for an increase in HSE staff over the next three years of between 300 and 400 over provisionally planned levels. It will also enable the HSE to increase the resources devoted to front-line inspection work by about 30 per cent. next year compared with this.
As a result, the HSE will be able to make many more regulatory contacts, significantly enhancing its efforts to prevent accidents. It will be able to carry out more accident and incident investigations, for which my hon. Friend called. Accident investigations and enforcement work are relatively time-consuming activities for inspectors. The HSE receives up to 170,000 referrals in a year.
The extra resources will mean that next year the HSE can investigate over 10 per cent. more incidents compared with the current year. That is in addition to the continuing work being carried out on railway and nuclear safety. The enforcement of the new directive on the control of major accident hazards—COMAH—which covers the petrochemical industry will demand greater HSE involvement. Last Monday, I spoke at a conference to launch the new COMAH regulations, which I signed this week.
The new resources for the HSC and HSE will enable them to take forward new initiatives to improve health and safety standards. Only last week, Ministers met the chairman and members of the commission to discuss its strategic plan for the next three years. We fully agree with that strategy. The plan will represent a real return on the new investment that we are making in health and safety.
Over the next three years, efforts will be focused on several key issues, including improving performance in important risk areas. Over the years, there has been a steady improvement in health and safety, but there are still problem areas and certain industries need further action. The Government are fully behind the commission's efforts to reduce accidents in construction and agriculture, not least because the construction industry's safety record is the second worst of any industry. That must be improved. We are also determined to restrict the use of asbestos.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin for the sterling work that he does on health and safety. I promise to write to him at the earliest opportunity about the issues that he has raised in this important debate.

Road Congestion (West Kent)

Mr. Archie Norman: I am glad of the opportunity to raise this matter, and grateful to the Minister for listening to what I have to say.
About a year ago, when some of us raised the question of the A21 and traffic congestion in the west Kent area, the Minister for Transport in London chose to give us a short lecture on the integrated transport policy. We understand the need for such a policy, and, in many respects, we sympathise with its objectives; but I hope that today we shall be able to deal specifically with the acute problems experienced by those in west Kent and areas to the south, caused by traffic congestion and the inertia in regard to transport policy—inertia that is blighting the area. This is the No.1 issue in west Kent. It is the No. 1 issue for residents and businesses in the area. It affects families, including people taking their children to school; it affects economic development; and it means serious blight for areas south of west Kent as far as Hastings, which is a relatively deprived area.
In response to a recent survey of businesses in the Tunbridge Wells area, no fewer than 39 per cent. of people said that they were considering moving because of the extent of the traffic congestion, while 92 per cent. said that they saw an urgent need for upgrading of the main trunk roads and the A21. Further delay in the improvement of trunk roads in the area will lead to acute problems. It will mean more and more rat-running through local villages—Speldhurst, Southborough, Pembury, Goudhurst and Horsmonden—which is blighting lives, and affecting areas of acute environmental sensitivity. It will also affect areas to the south, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle).
Safety considerations are also important. In a moment I shall refer to the great dangers on the A21, but other areas will be affected, notably Colt's Hill. Kent county council's inability to finance—because of lack of Government support—a link road or bypass is blighting the lives of local residents, and what is effectively a country lane is carrying some 13,000 vehicles a day, more than a quarter of which are lorries. That is serious.
This is not just a business issue; it is not just a transport issue. It is an issue which affects human lives. I, like others, have received thousands of letters on the subject. Elizabeth Romaine of Bishops Down Park road in Tunbridge Wells writes:
As a new driver I avoid the A21 for the simple reason that it is a death trap. As my grandparents live on this stretch of road, I have witnessed for 17 years many accidents that could so easily have been avoided.
Another letter—a very interesting letter—came from the head teacher of William Parker school in Hastings, who is a resident of Tunbridge Wells. He writes:
Frankly it is scandalous that such a main artery to the coast should be of such poor quality. The drive is beautiful, yet slow and dangerous, especially at night. Now, like many Tunbridge Wells inhabitants, I avoid the Castle Hill section for journeys north, but only add to Southborough's traffic congestion.
That is a very good illustration not just of the pain that is felt, but of the blight that is afflicting surrounding villages.
We fully recognise the need for any road improvement to be seen in the context of an integrated transport policy. Such improvements must not be viewed in isolation; they must be viewed in relation to bus services, park-and-ride schemes and railway schemes. At present, however—I am thinking of the conurbation of Pembury, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells, and the routes to the south—no road improvement is taking place, apart from the Lamberhurst bypass. That has been given the go-ahead, for which we are deeply grateful. The integrated transport policy, however, has been translated into no policy at all.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I am glad that my hon. Friend is focusing again on problems in west Kent and the area to the south. The A21 runs into east Sussex, and links with the A259.
Does my hon. Friend recall that on 16 February, in a helpful letter, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Lord Whitty, said that it had not yet been decided whether the access to Hastings study would be included in the first tranche of the national studies programme? Until that study has been completed and the report has been submitted, the Secretary of State will not be able to deal with representations on the A259 schemes relating to Hastings, Bexhill and the Pevensey marsh, and no work can be started on those schemes for a minimum of two years after that. All those schemes were included in the Conservatives' road building programme, but the timetable applying to the studies programme is now uncertain.

Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Time is now of the essence. I have the Minister's letter with me, and it is obscure about the timing. It seems that, whatever happens, it will happen some years from now. We accept that there will be a further review, but today we seek clarification in regard to its timing and purpose.
The fact remains that, so far, there has been no road improvement in the area. Nor has there been any rail improvement: it is well known that the Connex service has deteriorated over the past two years. Moreover, there has been no improvement in bus services. I am at a loss to identify a single bus service that has been added in the last couple of years. All that we have is a £380,000 grant for Tunbridge Wells borough council to put bus and bicycle lanes on the A26. Undoubtedly that money will prove very useful to the white paint industry, but it has done little to lessen traffic congestion. When I visited Arriva, the bus company, recently, I was told that since the bus lanes had been put in, not one extra bus had run on the A26, and there had been no increase in passenger traffic.
That illustrates something. It does not illustrate the fact that bus lanes are a bad idea; it illustrates the existence of a catch-22. Until the roads are improved and scope is created for park-and-ride and inter-modal connections, painting white lines on the A26 will not make any difference. In other words, without an integrated transport policy we cannot have road improvement, and without road improvement we cannot have an integrated transport policy. We are going round in circles.
In fact, the position is worsening. The roads review identified the A21 as a red spot area. At present, 100,000 vehicles are entering Tunbridge Wells each day between

7 am and 7 pm, and it is estimated that a 4 per cent. increase in that traffic—which is very likely in the next few years—would cause an extra 2.5 km of traffic jams.
The heart of the problem lies in a short stretch of the A21 at Castle Hill, about 2.5 miles long. It is the connection at the dual section at Pembury, between the main entry to the industrial estate and the heartland of Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge. It is also a vital part of the arterial route to the south coast. At present, the first part of the A21 is dualled, while the second part is a single lane; then there is a dual bit, and a single lane; then, with the Lamberhurst bypass, there is another dual bit; then there is another single lane, and then another dual bit. It is go-stop, go-stop, go-stop. Every bit of the investment that has been made in the past is being under-utilised as a result of the subsequent bottlenecks.
This is the main route between Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge, Pembury and Hastings, and it plays a vital role in providing access to amenities. Tunbridge Wells is a huge schools area: literally thousands of kids go to school there every morning, and have to sit in traffic jams for inordinate lengths of time. We hope to build a new hospital, but the site of the hospital will depend on the road. The emergency services are very worried about delays: ambulances may have problems in dealing with blue-light emergencies. The traffic generated by the hospital will pose a problem unless the road is improved.
At the last count, some six planning developments on the industrial estate were awaiting news of those improvements, some of which will have to be put off. We are talking about a stretch of only two and a half miles. There are many other local issues, but that section of road is the key to unlocking an improved and integrated transport policy for the area.
It is not a new issue, and there have been reviews in the past, including the 1992 public inquiry, and the Weald and Downs design, build, finance and operate programme, which was cancelled at a cost, we believe, of £6 million compensation to the contractor. Incidentally, the whole scheme costs £21 million—meaning that it need only have cost £15 million. A lot of money has been wasted, and we are getting review fatigue—as, I am sure, are the Government.
We understand that we must go through the next stage, but we need some specificity on timing, and a guarantee that the issue will be considered. We believe that the case is very strong, and that it was strong on the evidence submitted to the roads review. The document summarising the outcome of the review, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England—Understanding the New Approach to Appraisal", listed the statistical analysis conducted on each trunk road.
The Minister for Roads and Road Safety said that he felt that the case for Castle Hill was not strong, but analysis of his own data suggests that of all the A roads analysed in the report, the Castle Hill stretch of the A21 was the most stressed. That means that the volume of traffic in relation to the volume that the road was designed to bear was the worst of all the roads examined. The road had the fourth highest death rate of any A road analysed, and the sixth highest recorded accident rate. It had the seventh highest number of vehicles travelling on it per day of any A road—yet many of the A roads ranking far below the A21 were given the go-ahead. I hope that the


Minister can explain why, despite the strength of the Department's own analysis, other road schemes were given preference.
The Minister for Roads and Road Safety has said that if a dual-lane road were adopted—as opposed to a three-lane road—it would cost between £14 million and £15 million, giving the scheme the 11th highest cost-benefit ratio of any A road analysed. In other words, the economics of the scheme are strong on the data presented.
More seriously, we find on analysing the figures that there are some baffling flaws in the evidence, suggesting that the review has relied on outdated data or sloppy analysis. First, the journey time delay at peak times of the day at Castle Hill was estimated and quoted at only three and a half minutes. Locally, that figure is regarded as risible. Every morning and evening, people are waiting in long queues for between eight and 15 minutes—not three and a half minutes. Therefore, the economic benefits of the scheme—which were already strong—have been fundamentally underestimated.
Secondly, the environmental detriment of the scheme does not appear to be supported by any worthwhile analysis. We recognise that there may be an environmental downside, but there is an upside as well. The most alarming section—although no great weight has been attached to it—refers to one of the environmental detriments being that damage might be done to the great crested newt. I am sure that the Minister will join us in our sympathy for the great crested newt, but we have no evidence of its presence on the route of the scheme. I do not know whether officials have any evidence. No one locally has any evidence. Quite simply, we have been neutered by the great crested newt.
We were disturbed to hear from the Minister for Roads and Road Safety that very few representations had been received in favour of the scheme. That came as a staggering declaration to local people—most particularly because a petition of 8,000 signatures was handed to the former Minister for Roads and Road Safety outside this House immediately before the trunk roads review was completed. In other words, 8,000 signatures were as nothing, and considered not worthwhile representations.
Anybody with local knowledge will know that this is the No. 1 issue, and that it is not contentious. There will be some objectors to any road proposal, but local support is overwhelmingly in favour of the Castle Hill scheme at every level of the community, including local government, the county council and regional government. There is near unanimous support, and the strength of feeling is high. However, the sense of frustration is enormous. We have been delayed and delayed, and we find ourselves now confronted with another uncertain time scale.
I would like some assurances from the Minister. If he cannot give them today, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to explain the position. We accept where we are, and that we are to consider the access to Hastings study—yet another review. Incidentally, the A21 is only partly to do with access to Hastings. It is part of the picture, but the surrounding conurbation is as big as Hastings in aggregate, and the use of the road is not just to do with access to Hastings.
Will the Minister reassure us that the access to Hastings study will be in the first round of reviews, and will start as soon as possible? Can he tell us the dates on which he hopes to get the review off the ground, and when he hopes to have a report? Can he reassure us that the review will be able to consider not just road improvement as it affects Hastings, but road improvement as it affects towns along the route to Hastings? In other words, can we take into account the specific major congestion problem in west Kent caused by the bottleneck on the A21 at Castle Hill?
Can we consider the benefits to the communities in Pembury, Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge of road improvement in that area, recognising that further benefits to Hastings are incremental to that? Even if the access to Hastings study concludes that little can be done further south, can we have a reassurance that that stretch of the A21 will be improved if the analysis proves that that is the right thing to do? We are strongly convinced that it will.
Will the Minister undertake to publish the background to the fatally flawed analysis in the document, so that local people have the ability to respond and to make corrections to the analysis? There is no downside for the Government—or anybody else—in being open about the underlying assumptions. Can he reassure us that, in the study, there will be adequate representation of the communities along the road down to Hastings—particularly the residents of Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge?
We are asking the Minister to focus specifically on an acute problem—a serious issue for those who live in that part of west Kent and to the south. He must recognise the severity of a problem which affects everybody's daily lives in the area, and which is a major blight on economic development and on the environment. We are asking for clarity on the way forward, recognition of the need to get the next review completed and for a start in getting on with improvements to the roads.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing this debate on a matter of great interest to him. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), whom I have known for many years in this place, on his contribution. He has always taken any opportunity available to him to refer to the transport infrastructure in his area.
It is both interesting and useful to hear at first hand about the impact that congestion is having on the economic and environmental well-being of west Kent. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed out that that sometimes concerned the great crested newt—which some may have failed to appreciate. It is also useful to have the case for road and other transport infrastructure improvements in west Kent set out so strongly and clearly in their community, environmental and economic context.
Good communications are central to the economy and to our quality of life. As a trading nation—which is especially relevant to Kent—we need efficient transport links with our international markets and a transport system at home that functions effectively. Estimates vary, but the costs of traffic congestion to the nation are substantial, amounting to billions of pounds a year.
I would like to set the situation in west Kent in its wider regional context. As the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells said, it is not a matter of one particular road: one must consider the whole economic and environmental structure of an area in dealing with such an important matter.
Transport infrastructure in the south-east is a strength, not a weakness. I know that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that, having spent his previous life outside the House being concerned about traffic flow and congestion. The range and quality of the region's international connections, its closeness to mainland Europe and its generally good transport connections to London benefit business and promote foreign and domestic investment. The region has the highest density of rail network in the country, which is an opportunity on which we must build. That is not to say that there are not some problems that we need to tackle.
The environment-transport interface, which is important throughout the country, is especially prominent in the south-east—excuse me for a moment, I seem to have a frog, or perhaps a great crested newt, in my throat—where population density is among the highest in the country outside London, development pressure is strong, levels of car ownership and use are high and about a third of the land area is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, 7 per cent. is green belt and about a tenth is urban or suburban.
West Kent has its share of designated areas—the Kent downs and High Weald areas of outstanding natural beauty—and historical sites, including Chartwell and Hever castle. Major roads in the south-east are the most heavily used outside London and nearly a quarter of the motorway network in England is in the south-east. Again, west Kent has its share. Eight in 10 households in the south-east have a car, compared with seven in 10 in the United Kingdom as a whole. The figure for Kent is just above the national average.
The region has one of the highest population densities in the country outside London, and household projections show it generating a higher number of additional households than any other region. In common with other regions, the trend in the south-east has been towards increasingly dispersed travel patterns and journey lengths. People living in the south-east also travel further than the average for the country as a whole—on average 8,100 miles a year, compared with a United Kingdom average of 6,500 miles. In 1997, 15 per cent. of the UK's road freight of 1.74 billion tonnes originated or was unloaded in the south-east.
Having outlined the scale of road use in the region, I would like to discuss the situation in west Kent, as I know that the hon. Gentleman is deeply interested in my getting to that point. As he said, on various parts of the trunk road network motorists suffer serious congestion and queuing. We are in that situation because past transport policies focused on road building, which is precisely why we announced a new direction in transport policy in "A New Deal for Transport", published last year.
The hon. Gentleman referred to congestion at some locations on the A21, notably at North Farm roundabout,

Castle Hill and between Pembury and Lamberhurst. In particular, he asked that the Tonbridge and Pembury scheme be speeded up and considered separately from the access to Hastings study, but I have to remind him that the scheme was remitted to the study because we were not convinced that, taken to public inquiry, it represents a sustainable solution to the problems.
There are outstanding questions about whether dual three-lane standard is appropriate and we have concerns about the effect of the scheme on the landscape. I know that the hon. Gentleman is also concerned about that. We need to investigate further whether, and if so to what extent, the scheme contributes to the regeneration needs of the Hastings area. That is why it is right to consider the scheme as part of the access to Hastings study.
On present trends, and without action to implement "A New Deal for Transport", traffic is forecast to grow by more than a third on all roads over the next 20 years and by more than half on trunk roads. Few would suggest that such traffic growth should be accommodated by new road building programmes. All Kent Members would be horrified if that were to be the case.
That level of growth represents millions of additional and longer journeys. The impact of that amount of traffic growth and congestion on people, the environment and the economy would be substantial and adverse. The tranquillity of the countryside would be further eroded and the rush hour would become longer.

Mr. Norman: We know that road building cannot go on for ever, but does the Minister fully appreciate the fact that improving the relevant stretch of the A21 is crucial to creating the other integrated transport schemes, such as park and ride and access to stations, that would allow us to get traffic off the roads, and that the dualling will take traffic that is currently rat-running through the villages off those village roads and put it on the main trunk road where it should be?

Mr. Meale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the Tunbridge Wells area, although I have no elderly relatives, who seem to represent the shareholding population of the UK. I am well aware, from letters received in the Department, of difficulties with rat-running. I hope to deal with that a little more when I come to more localised responses to his queries.
The cost to business would soar if traffic growth were allowed to continue unchecked, and there would be grave damage to the environment and to our health. Transport—along with skills, site availability and housing—has been identified in the competitiveness strategy for the south-east as the highest priority for the region.
If sustainable solutions are not found, the economy will respond by losing activities that require better access than is currently available, becoming less flexible and competitive, and its potential for growth will become increasingly constrained. I believe that most people realise that the way in which we travel is changing our environment for the worse. Light pollution and noise from transport have changed much of our countryside. Road construction and car parking have made heavy demands on land, and climate change is one of the greatest environmental threats facing the world today.
That is why we are delivering the integrated transport agenda set out in the White Paper, which marked a turning point for transport policy in this country, setting out for the first time in 20 years a strategic framework for extending choice and delivering a transport system that is safe, efficient, clean, fair and available to everyone. It is clear that there is widespread support for the overall aim and objectives of our policy. Indeed, I am much encouraged by the work that is going on throughout the country to turn the objectives into reality.
The hon. Gentleman raised an awful lot of issues about certain junctions and side roads and requested dualling. I know that he has already met my noble Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — EU Structural Funds

Mr. Denzil Davies: If he will make a statement on the impact of Agenda 2000 negotiations on the European Union structural funds. [72453]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The Agenda 2000 negotiations include preparing the European Union for enlargement and providing for simpler, fairer and more accessible European structural funds programmes.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will have heard and read the figure of £1.5 billion to £2 billion as the possible amount that Wales would receive if it obtained objective 1 status. Can he confirm that such a figure is ring-fenced, or will it be affected by the current deadlock between the French and Germans in the negotiations? Will my hon. Friend clear up a slight mystery by confirming which is the lead Department involved in the negotiations on the structural funds? Is it the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office or the Treasury?

Mr. Hain: On the latter point, all three Departments are involved and the Welsh Office is taking a close interest. The negotiations as they are proceeding in Brussels at the moment are slow, but we hope that the issues will be resolved within the next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — Meningitis

Mr. David Amess: What meetings he has had with the National Meningitis Trust. [72454]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What recent meetings he has had with the Meningitis Research Foundation. [72458]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): While I have not met the trust or the foundation personally, my officials have had regular contact with them over recent weeks. I have also invited both organisations to nominate representatives to join the group that we recently set up to examine meningitis in Wales. Both groups were represented at the first meeting. I can promise swift action on any recommendations that come from that group. In the longer term, the issue will be one which the National Assembly will wish to pursue.

Mr. Amess: There have been more reported cases of meningitis recently than there have been for 50 years, and 45 of those cases have been in Wales. As the father of young children, I empathise with those parents who are concerned when their children become ill about what the possible circumstances of that illness might be. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what tangible

support the Government are giving to the National Meningitis Trust, which is currently beleaguered by telephone calls from concerned parents?

Mr. Michael: I understand the concerns that parents have in such circumstances, for personal reasons. My son had meningitis when he was a university student and for a few days we were very afraid, until we got the news that it was not life threatening. I understand the emotions of people in Pontypridd, for instance, which has seen a large number of cases. However, it is difficult to discover anything tangible that can be identified as linking cases and can lead to preventive and prophylactic action as appropriate. That is why we established a group, which is chaired by a distinguished medical expert, to consider the evidence. Although the available evidence suggests a statistical issue rather than something that can be identified as the cause of the cases that have occurred, we want to go further—for the very reason the hon. Gentleman mentioned—because we need to do everything we can to identify anything that could explain the number of cases that have arisen in a specific area at a specific time.

Mr. Winterton: The Secretary of State's responses are highly satisfactory, as far as they go. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) with his children, I have an interest because of my young grandchildren. However, my interest lies not only in my own family, or with what has happened in Wales. There has also been a meningitis outbreak in Macclesfield, and both the National Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation have been overwhelmed by approaches from anxious parents. The two charities receive some Government assistance, but is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give additional funds to take the charities through a period during which the demands on their voluntary helpers and paid staff are so dramatically heavy?

Mr. Michael: I understand the pressures that are resulting from people seeking information. It has put pressure on the public services as well. However, in seeking to deal with queries from the public and to provide the help that they need, we must consider the outcome of the work of the group to which I have already referred. If public information and co-operation with the voluntary sector are proved to be necessary, we shall consider acting on the recommendations of the group's report. For now, however, that issue is not at the forefront. The priority is to establish what can be done to identify links on which we can act.

Mr. Allan Rogers: My right hon. Friend will know that during the recent outbreaks, particularly that in the constituency of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), there was a great deal of scaremongering and ill-informed comment. The situation was not helped by certain people who used it for political purposes, which is much to be regretted. Will my right hon. Friend make available sufficient resources for a proper education programme to be developed in schools? The latest outbreak is one of half a dozen in recent years, and the public need to be educated if we are not to have such scaremongering again.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. Comments were made that were unhelpful, but some were inspired by


genuine concern among parents and others. One problem is that dealing with meningitis is not easy. If it were simple to identify a specific strain, action would have been taken long ago. Steps taken include the establishment by the health authority of an outbreak control team, in which experts from the communicable disease surveillance centre and the Public Health Laboratory Service in Wales were involved along with voluntary organisations. I kept in close contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, as did the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones).
The way in which the public services responded was entirely praiseworthy. They tried to make sure that information was made available as quickly and fully as possible to schools, and there was excellent co-operation between the education and health services. However, we must apply all tests to find out why the number of cases that emerged did so, as we are seeking to do with the advice and help of all available experts.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: We welcome the inquiry, but, to return to what the Secretary of State said earlier, is an appraisal being made of the usefulness of the recent diagnostic invention that can identify strains of the disease?

Mr. Michael: Yes, that is one of the issues that the committee is considering.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State has a deep concern about meningitis following his personal experience, as does the hon. Member for Pontypridd, because of what happened in his constituency. However, Wales has the second highest incidence of meningitis in Europe, and we seek swift action from the committee that is considering that dreadful disease. The group has met once. When will there be some positive guidance for parents who are deeply concerned by the outbreak so that they may be reassured? No one wants to create a panic, but proper reassurance and guidance must be given to the parents.

Mr. Michael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for way in which he made his point. I assure him not only that we will act swiftly on recommendations that come from the group, as I promised earlier, but that the group is tackling its job with a sense of urgency and hopes to report by the end of May. That will be the starting point for action. Longer-term actions are being taken in respect of identifying vaccines. We are not in that situation yet, but that work, with the short-term identification of anything that we can do, will be given the urgency that he seeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — EU Structural Funds

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding matching funding from the Treasury for objective 1 funding. [72455]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Once the European Commission and member states have agreed the new structural fund arrangements, the Government will consider the distribution of European receipts for wider programmes. In these discussions,

I shall ensure that the interests of Wales are pursued vigorously. I hope that Plaid Cymru will support me in that endeavour rather than asking questions that it knows to be premature.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that stricture, but I have listened carefully to his public response on this issue. He has been remarkably coy. For us to assist him, now that he has discounted the reply that the Economic Secretary gave some months ago and says that the situation is different, does he expect the Treasury to be able to give extra cash under objective 1 funding?

Mr. Michael: Yes. The reply of the Economic Secretary was used in a reprehensible way by the Institute of Welsh Affairs. It was a letter that referred to the current situation, as Opposition Members acknowledged during exchanges last week. The reply to the hon. Gentleman's question is the one that I gave earlier. Once the European Commission and member states have agreed the new structural fund arrangements, and we know the dates and figures and so on, the Government will consider the way we meet the requirements of the European Union. The British Government have met those requirements, and I am certain that my Government colleagues will co-operate fully in trying to ensure that we get the best possible deal for Wales within the decision made by the EU.
I must say gently that the hon. Gentleman's party was not originally optimistic that we would succeed in getting objective 1 status. We are on the verge of succeeding in that, and I hope that we will have his support in ensuring that we get the best for Wales.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: What are the figures? Are there proposals to cut the structural funds in the European budget savagely? If so, will the Government oppose them?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend knows that the impact of enlargement, with the new countries that were not in the previous round, means that there are considerations that make it difficult to predict figures until we get to the end of the process. The discussions that are going on were mentioned earlier. We maintain a close interest in them and are very optimistic that we will have a positive outcome. We can then get on with the discussion necessary within government to turn the decision into practical action.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Has the Minister considered where he would find the resources to match fund initiatives in areas of Wales that may qualify for objective 2 status?

Mr. Michael: There is much confusion between additionality and matched funding, which makes simple answers difficult. I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the things that we are doing is considering the strategy for developing the economy of the whole of Wales during objective 1 status and also trying to ensure that there are opportunities for areas outside objective 1 status, which have their own needs, to ensure that the overall strategy works. I assure him that that is at the forefront of our minds.

Mr. John Smith: I hope that the whole House will support my right hon. Friend in his bid


for objective 1 status, but I, too, am concerned about areas outwith objective 1, such as the coastal strip of Cardiff, the Vale of Glamorgan, and Cardiff international airport, which is a valuable strategic asset for the whole of Wales and requires development support.

Mr. Michael: Yes. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that, outside objective 1 areas, other communities in Wales have needs. Our aim is to do the best for the objective 1 areas that are objectively those in the greatest need in terms of low GDP and high unemployment, but also to be conscious of the needs of other areas in discussions on assisted status and in our economic strategies throughout Wales. I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Dr. Liam Fox: In the interests of clarity, will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he has already had with the Treasury about potential matched funding, should this fortuitous situation come about? Should not such money be available from the Treasury, and would such funding be an appropriate use of funds within the Welsh block?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is playing the tune that I asked Plaid Cymru not to play. He is asking questions that cannot be answered until we get to the point. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will have discussions with the Treasury. Both my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary are aware of the likely impact of a decision to give objective 1 status to large parts of Wales. There will then be discussions within the Government. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is the way in which these matters proceed, and they will. I shall make sure that we get the best possible deal for Wales in those discussions.

Dr. Fox: Does not that answer betray everything about the Secretary of State's position? It is a perfectly simple question. Has he already had discussions with the Treasury or not? That is hardly a difficult one for him to answer, but he could not give a commitment either on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the Welsh Assembly that it would be appropriate to use the Welsh block. He is not free to make that commitment, should he become the leader of the Welsh Assembly, because he does not have the ability to do so. Nor is he free from the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, which would enable him to be free from Treasury decisions. He is in an unworkable position and he cannot do what he initially said in response to the question that he would do. He cannot pursue Wales's interest vigorously because he has to pursue the interests of the Labour party first.

Mr. Michael: That rather confused question betrays the cynicism and opportunism that the hon. Gentleman brings to the Dispatch Box. He knows full well the way in which the discussions take place. He and his colleagues tried to cast doubt on the Government's ability to get the NUTS 1 boundary agreed in order to achieve objective 1 status. His cynicism then is followed through by his cynicism now. We will make sure as a Government that the best possible agreement is reached to enable the decisions that are made in Europe to flow through to action in Wales in the best interests of Wales.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister will be aware that my constituency is one of the poorest in

Wales, with some of the highest levels of unemployment, the lowest incomes and the worst health problems in the United Kingdom. He will also be aware that the future of the constituency is to a great extent dependent on obtaining objective 1 status. While I understand that my right hon. Friend cannot make a statement today about matched funding, is it possible to estimate the kind of moneys that would come from Europe should we obtain objective 1? Lots of figures are being bandied about.

Mr. Michael: Figures as high as £2 billion have been bandied around, but I have to stress that those are guesstimates rather than estimates until we have the final decision and until decisions are made on when the money will come forward. We want to make sure that the opportunity of objective 1 money is used strategically so that it changes the economy for the long term. We must not be in the position that money has come in, we have used it, and we have not changed the economy of Wales. I am certain that that will be one of my hon. Friend's priorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — Lucas-SEI Work Force

Mr. Richard Livsey: What progress he has made in finding alternative employment for the work force of the Lucas-SEI factory at Ystradgynlais in the upper Swansea valley. [72456]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The nine-point action plan that I announced on 1 February is being taken forward actively and, so far, job referrals have been made to about half the Lucas work force. Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

Mr. Livsey: I know that the Minister and his Department have been working hard on this issue, but I am sure that he appreciates that only 30 of the employees of Lucas-SEI have found work. It is a serious situation. The leaflet that I hold in my hand was produced by the overseas trade services department of the Welsh Office. It says:
It's not too late to take the plunge into Poland.
An event is taking place on 10 March that is aimed at Welsh investors. Would it not be better if those Welsh investors invested in the upper Swansea valley instead and provided jobs on the Ystradgynlais site, where there are many women, but 500 of them cannot leave their community to work? They have no transport, they have children at school, and they have a sore need for employment.

Mr. Hain: I pay tribute to the role that the hon. Gentleman has played with me in advancing and protecting the case of the Lucas workers. However, he fundamentally misrepresents what the export mission is about. As a Government, we should support Welsh businesses, including those in the Swansea valley, that want to export to Poland and elsewhere in the world; we should protect jobs, increase growth opportunities and strengthen those businesses. That is what the mission organised by the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is about. It is not in conflict with the attempt to rescue the


situation in the Swansea valley; it complements that effort, because it strengthens Welsh businesses that want to sell their goods and services abroad.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Although I feel every sympathy for the 700 people—a large fraction of whom live in my constituency—who will lose their work at Ystradgynlais, may I express my strong support for my hon. Friend's handling of the problem? Regrettably, it was necessary to deal with it in a hard-headed way, in that the jobs went to Poland to people paid only about a quarter of the wages paid here. Is there any possibility of that multinational company bringing alternative work to Ystradgynlais? Obviously, we must redouble our efforts to bring other work to that area.

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I have held discussions at the highest levels, in America and Britain, with the company and its new owner to try to secure the future of the site for the Swansea valley and to provide alternative job opportunities. However, the message from Lucas-SEI deals a savage blow to the Swansea valley, because the jobs that are being created in Poland and Slovakia pay only a quarter of the wages that were being paid in south Wales. That shows that the Government's strategy of driving the Welsh economy upwards to a high-skill, high-quality economy is the only one that will safeguard jobs in the future.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a lesson to be learned about the importance of lower levels of regulation and social cost, and especially—in relation to the Polish example—about the transformation of an economy that can be wrought by capitalism?

Mr. Hain: I realise that the hon. Gentleman stumbles into Welsh debates with a certain amount of clumsiness, but I must point out to him that the lesson of the Lucas fiasco is that the Tory strategy, pursued in Wales for 18 bitter years, of attacking the work force and closing down jobs does not work. The only strategy that will work is to drive up the quality of the Welsh economy so that it is a high-skill, world-class economy in which people want to invest. People will want to remain operating in Wales because we in Wales have the best work force and the best economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — Carers

Ms Julie Morgan: What plans he has to help carers in Wales. [72457]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The national strategy for carers was launched on 8 February, and outlines the Government's new co-ordinated approach to ensure that the needs of carers are addressed. It prepares the way for the work of the Assembly in that sphere of activity. Our aim is to provide improved information, care and support for carers throughout Wales, and to give carers the quality of life that we believe they deserve.

Ms Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. What would he say to the hundreds of carers who are

meeting in Llandrindod Wells today about the future availability of respite care? As he is aware, respite care in Wales is currently dependent on where one lives. How will he ensure that affordable respite care is available to all carers throughout Wales, especially in view of the announcement about England?

Mr. Michael: Yes. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), met social services representatives at the end of last week, and we are actively discussing the matter with them. We are pursuing the integration of health and social services so that people receive proper standards of care in all areas. The review and reform of the health service that I described to the House last week are very much a part of that process.

Mr. John Bercow: What specific, new carer-friendly employment practices does the right hon. Gentleman envisage? Does he suppose that, on the whole, they will be spread through exhortation or via legislation?

Mr. Michael: I think that they will be spread through partnership. We are working closely with the health service and local authorities in Wales—bodies which were once at each other's throats as a result of the divisive reforms of the health service introduced by the previous Government. We are working hard to ensure that the health service, local government and voluntary organisations co-operate in the best interests of carers whose needs are great—and whose needs are respected on the Government Benches.

Mr. Huw Edwards: I assure my right hon. Friend that the national carers strategy is particularly welcome in Wales. However, concern has been expressed about the allocation of resources for respite care. Some £140 million has been devoted to respite care for local authorities in England. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that a proportionate amount will be allocated to Wales?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend may be labouring under a misapprehension because Wales and England use different systems. Money allocated to local authorities in Wales is unhypothecated. That is why I referred to the discussions that my hon. Friend is having with Welsh local authorities, social services departments and the Welsh Local Government Association. We want to do our best for carers, but the allocation in Wales is different because the method is different.

Oral Answers to Questions — Meningitis

Mr. James Gray: What new guidelines have been issued to schools, universities and general practitioners following the outbreak of meningitis in south Wales. [72459]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): The chief medical officer issued a letter to all doctors in Wales on 20 January 1999 to remind them about the importance of early recognition


and prompt intervention in meningococcal infection. Helplines and advice are made available to local people by health authorities when an outbreak occurs. In addition, bilingual leaflets containing advice on recognising the signs and symptoms of meningitis are widely available. This information is targeted particularly at new mothers and university and college students.

Mr. Gray: I thank the Minister for his reply. None the less, is he concerned that conflicting messages may have been sent to parents in Wales? On the one hand, they have been directed to use accident and emergency services only for emergencies and, on the other, they are naturally concerned about the meningitis crisis. Should the Government not make it absolutely clear to all parents that, if they have the slightest concern that their children might be suffering from meningitis, they must contact the nearest accident and emergency unit as soon as possible?

Mr. Jones: There is clearly cause for concern whenever an outbreak occurs, and special advice is provided at the time. It would normally be appropriate for parents to consult their GPs, and Welsh GPs have received up-to-date advice about how to act promptly when signs of meningitis are identified. That procedure has worked in the case of outbreaks in Wales. I know that parents have been hugely concerned, but local authorities and particularly teachers acted promptly and gave of their own time to ensure that parents were well informed and that action was taken immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — Unemployment Rates

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If he will make a statement on the percentage of the population currently unemployed in (a) Gwynedd and (b) Wales. [72460]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): In January 1999, 7.8 per cent. of the population of Gwynedd were unemployed and the figure for Wales was 5.9 per cent.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that both those figures are far too high? Does he accept also that, if we achieve objective 1 status for the west of Wales—which includes Gwynedd—and the European Union gives its highest priority to the problems of that area, the United Kingdom Government should do likewise in reviewing the assisted area map and give the whole of the objective 1 area in Wales top-level priority?

Mr. Hain: We are giving the whole objective 1 area of Wales top-level priority. Because of the Labour Government's achievements, we have the chance of delivering one of the best boosts that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, west Wales and the valleys have ever had, by drawing down European funding.
Since Labour came to power, 300 youngsters in the right hon. Gentleman's area have been given the chance of a job with training under the new deal and £7 million of regional assistance has been provided to companies in his constituency to bring in 1,000 new jobs or safeguard existing jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Mr. Christopher Gill: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Today, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also briefed on the hideous murders of eight tourists in Uganda. The high commission is seeking to establish the facts, and we are obviously in close consultation with the Ugandan authorities. The House will know that four of the dead—Joanne Cotton, Martin Friend, Mark Lindgren and Stephen Roberts—were British, and the thoughts of the whole House will be with their friends and families, to whom we pledge to do all in our power to bring their killers to justice.

Mr. Gill: Given that his Secretaries of State for Wales are partial to forbidden fruits, what steps will the Prime Minister now take to ensure that moments of madness involving beef on the bone do not, in future, constitute an offence? Will he now revoke the ridiculous and discredited ban on beef on the bone, or is it the case that his European puppet masters will not let him?

The Prime Minister: I thought for one moment that we would get through a question from the hon. Gentleman without a hit on Europe, but I was mistaken. On beef on the bone, I gather that the event to which his question relates was designed to promote the Welsh beef industry, and I can only say that it had considerable success. The ban is in place because, as he knows, the chief medical officer has given us what he terms his strong advice that there should be further tests. Obviously, we shall lift the ban as soon as that is consistent with medical advice.

Ms Julia Drown: Is the Prime Minister aware that this Sunday will mark 300 days until the new millennium? Is he aware also that in those 300 days, the level of debt repayments from poor countries will mean that the lives of millions of children in Africa alone will be lost? I congratulate the Government on their good work on debt relief, including today's announcements, but, as the millennium approaches, will my right hon. Friend agree to consider the outright cancellation of the debt of those poorest countries that are committed to tackling poverty, so that we can take a lead in ending that unnecessary loss of children's lives?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an issue of concern to millions of people in this country and throughout the world. She will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the millennium target for debt relief of £50 billion to the world's poorest countries by the end of 2000. That is right, and we shall lead the campaign internationally to cancel as much debt as possible. She will know also that the new Labour Government have increased the overseas aid budget by


the largest amount ever, and after years of that budget declining as a percentage of our national income, it is now rising for the first time in two decades.

Mr. William Hague: I associate the Opposition with the Prime Minister's remarks about the tragic events in Uganda.
On a subject closer to home, the Prime Minister may recall that he and I received a letter from Mr. Nelson, an NHS patient who has been told to wait 80 weeks to see a consultant in a trauma and orthopaedic clinic. Will the Prime Minister confirm that people waiting in that manner, of whom there have been many more in the past two years, do not appear in the waiting list figures that were published yesterday?

The Prime Minister: The waiting list figures are published and calculated under this Government in exactly the same way that they were under the previous Government. Partly as a result of providing money over and above what the Conservatives promised for the national health service, we are bringing waiting lists down.

Mr. Hague: The figures are calculated in the same way and they reveal that waiting lists are longer under this Government after two years, and that the real scandal is the number of people, such as Mr. Nelson, who are waiting to be on waiting lists. That figure is double what it was two years ago. Is not the truth that there are now nearly half a million people waiting for hospital appointments as a direct result of managing the national health service for the sake of appearances rather than patients? Are not the Government now just spinning the figures and playing with politics instead of serving the patients?

The Prime Minister: No. First, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation that we are indeed calculating the figures in precisely the same way as the last Government, as his shadow health spokesman has been saying the opposite month after month. Secondly, we have brought down health service waiting lists after years of rising lists. As for the number of out-patients, I can give him the latest figures. During the third quarter of 1998–99, 68,000 more were treated than in the previous quarter.

Mr. Hague: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the figures, too—468,000 people waiting for hospital appointments compared with 248,000 only two years ago. The Government calculate the figures in the same way, but they have moved people who would have been on waiting lists to waiting to be on waiting lists. The chairman of the British Medical Association consultants committee himself said:
If all you are doing is shortening your waiting times for operations and waiting lists to see a consultant are going up, then your proper waiting list is getting longer.
Should not the Prime Minister stop spending £150 million on dragooning GPs into new bureaucracies and concentrate it on this instead, and reduce the real waiting lists in our health service?

The Prime Minister: No, because the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. Not merely are we

treating more out-patients than before, but we are treating several hundred thousand more in-patients; so in respect of both in-patient and out-patient lists, we are treating more people. In addition, from 1 April, the Government are going to introduce £21 billion extra spending in the national health service, having sorted out the mess left behind by the Tories. That £21 billion is opposed by his party, and described as reckless and irresponsible. That is why this country will trust us, not him, with the health service. [Interruption.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was it on purpose or by mistake that the oil pipeline between Iraq and Turkey was hit?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry; I did not hear the first bit of that question.

Madam Speaker: Nor did I. This is a very noisy House; it ought to be a little quieter. Mr. Dalyell, let us have your question again.

Mr. Dalyell: Was it on purpose or by mistake that the oil pipeline between Iraq and Turkey was hit by a missile or bomb?

The Prime Minister: No, it certainly was not on purpose, but we do not yet even know the extent of the damage, if any. Let me explain to my hon. Friend again why it is necessary that we police the no-fly zones. In Iraq, it is necessary in order to protect both the Kurdish people and the Shia Muslims from the brutality of Saddam Hussein. If he wants to stop those patrols, he can come back into line with the United Nations resolutions, stop butchering people for whom he has responsibility, and start behaving like a responsible leader in the world.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As the Serbs mass troops and armour on the Macedonian border and as Kosovo slips back into widespread conflict, will the Prime Minister give us his assessment of the realistic prospects for success at the reconvened Rambouillet talks, when they take place?

The Prime Minister: It would be a brave person who predicted an optimistic outcome. On the other hand, we have made good progress in two ways. First, the framework for autonomy in Kosovo is now in place and agreed. Secondly, there is significant progress—not yet total agreement—on the idea of having an outside force in Kosovo in order to make sure that the agreement works. The implementation conference is on 15 March. I believe that there is every prospect that we may get the two sides in agreement. We will obviously do everything that we can in the meantime to make sure that that happens.

Mr. Ashdown: But is it not the case that the west's attempts to find peace in Kosovo have been severely hampered by our reluctance to state clearly what it is we are trying to achieve? Is it not now essential that we recognise what everyone understands to be the truth, but which no one has yet dared to say—that the actions of the Serbs in Kosovo have removed from them the moral authority to govern Kosovo on the basis of 5 per cent. of the population, that the only sensible interim status for


Kosovo is as an international protectorate, and that although independence cannot be a solution in the short term, it cannot be excluded as a long-term option?

The Prime Minister: The way that we have set out is more practical. The right hon. Gentleman says that our objectives are not clear; they are clear. They are, first, to get agreement on the constitutional programme for Kosovo, which has now been agreed by both sides—that is why it is not very helpful to talk about a different constitutional settlement altogether—and secondly, to establish a force in Kosovo in order to police that settlement and make it happen.
In the meantime, the two most important things in my judgment are, first, sending a message to Kosovo Albanians that they must avoid provoking new clashes, and that we are not going there in order to be their fighting force for independence—that is not our role—and secondly, our responsibility to say very clearly to President Milosevic that, if there is renewed repression in Kosovo, we remain ready immediately to take military action against him. Giving that clear message to both sides and making progress on the constitutional settlement are the best way forward. The danger of the way forward outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, which may have attractions for one side in the dispute, is that we would fail to get general agreement.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In view of this Government's important additional investment in science, engineering and technology, does my right hon. Friend welcome the launch last week of the Athena project, which aims to increase women's participation in science, and to retain women in science and progress them in scientific careers? Will he confirm that Departments that employ scientists will be at the forefront in implementing the project's aims?

The Prime Minister: I confirm both those points. We welcome the project and the fact that it offers the opportunity to open up prospects for more women in science. Britain has the potential to lead the world in many areas of science and technology. We are working on ensuring that inventions and scientific achievements in this country are also exploited commercially in this country for the benefit of our future prosperity.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Where in the Labour manifesto did it warn that the effect of Labour policies would be to reduce the rate of economic growth from 3.5 per cent. to just 0.5 per cent. in less than two years?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may recall the recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which said that that rate of growth was unsustainable—[Interruption.] It says that the only way in which to ensure proper growth in this country is to pursue the policies for economic stability that this Government have undertaken, such as Bank of England independence, which Conservative Members oppose, the sorting out of public finances, so that we do not have the doubled national debt that we inherited, and, of course, an end to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Boom and bust."] Boom and bust, exactly.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow

(Mr. Dalyell), my right hon. Friend referred to accidental damage to the oil supply line from Iraq to Turkey, which carries oil under the United Nations oil for aid programme. Is he aware of the other, unofficial supply of oil between Iraq and Turkey, which is for cash? It is funding the Baghdad regime and supplying money to keep the Republican Guard in place. Given that it is in breach of UN resolutions, will he raise with his American counterparts the need to take military action to block that supply, which is carried by truck? Many of us believe that if that line is broken, the Baghdad regime will fall.

The Prime Minister: One of the targets in the military action that we took before Christmas was precisely directed at ensuring that the sanctions regime was upheld. My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right and justified. We cannot say often enough that Saddam Hussein is able to sell as much oil as he wants for food and medicine for the Iraqi people. We will not allow him to get round the sanctions and use that oil money to build up a weapons arsenal.

Mr. James Clappison: In his manifesto, the Prime Minister promised to promote saving, which is a key to growth in future. Why is it then that, under his Government, the savings ratio has gone down by a third?

The Prime Minister: We are promoting savings and we are doing it, first, by introducing the pensions reforms that will allow people, many of them lower-income people, to save for the first time in years. As for pensions and savings, what most people remember are the pension mis-selling scandals under the previous Government, which we sorted out when we came in.

Mr. Jim Cousins: On Monday, the treaty banning landmines came into effect—and I hope that we can all take some credit for the part that our country, our Prime Minister and our Foreign Secretary played in that—but Russia, China and the United States have not signed up to the treaty. We can be sure that, since Monday, more mines have been laid in the world than have been cleared. Can the Prime Minister assure us that Britain will not be a home to anyone who deals in landmines, or to any dirty money that is generated by selling them? No amount of laundering can wash the filth from profits that are made by planting landmines to maim women and to cripple children.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know of the very strong position that we have taken internationally on that issue. We will continue to do so. Last week, we announced the destruction of the last of our land operational anti-personnel mines, which happened four years ahead of the deadline that was set in the Ottawa convention. We are also increasing our annual funding for demining-related activity. I can assure him that we will do all we can not merely to implement the convention, but to try to persuade all members of the international community to do the same.

Mr. Martin Bell: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider the advantages of the political parties allowing their Back Benchers more freedom to speak their minds and to vote


with their consciences, so that this place might become rather more the free Parliament of a free people, and rather less a rubber-stamp assembly.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is in a party of one, it is obviously a fairly easy issue for him, but I happen to believe that we are perfectly entitled as a Government to put through our programme. What is important is that we do deliver that programme. That is precisely what we are doing.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the day that Wales elects its National Assembly will be a day of historic importance not only for Wales, but for the British state? Does he agree that what Wales must avoid like the plague is nationalism and separatism? Does he also agree that what my constituents are looking for are real jobs, better hospitals and improved school services?

The Prime Minister: That is precisely what the £2.4 billion plans that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will deliver for Wales: better schools and hospitals. The new deal will deliver better jobs and the economic policy of the Government has delivered lower mortgages.

Mr. William Hague: Three weeks ago at Question Time, the Prime Minister failed to answer a question asking by how much he had increased taxes in the past two Budgets. In fact, he said:
business tax has come down under this Government."—[Official Report, 10 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 316.]
The Confederation of British Industry says in its Budget submission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that taxes on businesses are up by £5 billion a year, so who is the telling the truth: the Prime Minister or the CBI?

The Prime Minister: Actually, the CBI has welcomed our reform of tax. [Laughter.] Yes, it has. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the reform of tax credits, of course, that will yield from the next couple of years onwards a £4 billion tax cut for business. I assume that it is his policy to reverse the policy now, in which case it will be interesting to know how he pays for it, but it is under this Government that corporation tax and small business tax are the lowest that they have ever been.

Mr. Hague: Evidently, we have as much chance of getting a straight answer out of the Prime Minister as of meeting the Minister for the Cabinet Office in economy class, or of meeting the Secretary of State for Wales at a meeting of the Electoral Reform Society. The truth of what the CBI says is that the previous two Budgets resulted in an extra tax burden on businesses of more than £5 billion a year since Labour's election. That figure is not confined to the taxes that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned; it includes more corporation tax, more fuel duties, more stamp duties and lost dividend tax credits. Will he now acknowledge that his claim three weeks ago that business taxes have come down was complete and utter rubbish?

The Prime Minister: No, I will not. As I have just said to the right hon. Gentleman, we have cut corporation tax. If we consider the figures, the tax burden will increase

over this Parliament at or below the level predicted by the Conservatives in their last Budget. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is wrong. However, at the same time, we have managed to sort out public finances, to get interest rates at their lowest level for more than 30 years and to get inflation back under control, all of which the right hon. Gentleman's Government failed to do.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister told the House that business tax had come down and it is an indisputable fact that it has gone up by billions of pounds. Contrary to specific election promises and contrary to every statement in the House, the Government have raised taxes on businesses by stealth and on the whole country by stealth. Before we debate next week's Budget, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman started to tell the truth about the previous one?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that the Government, by introducing the working families tax credit, will make 1.5 million families better off, some by up to £20 a week. Child benefit is coming in—an extra £130 a year to 5.5 million families—[Interruption.] Hon. Members think that it does not matter that these families are getting more money. National insurance has been cut, as has value added tax, corporation tax and long-term capital gains tax.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's mention of the petrol duty fuel escalator, it is correct that there is such an escalator. Under this Government, it is 6 per cent., and 5 per cent. of it was introduced by his Government. If it is not now out of order to quote the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to Conservatives, I shall read out what the then Chancellor said when he introduced the escalator. He said:
Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]
The other part of the business tax is the windfall tax. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to that, too.

Mr. Hague: indicated assent.

The Prime Minister: There we are. So he is opposed to the new deal. So hundreds of thousands of young and unemployed people know that if they vote Tory, they will get put out of a job. It is this Government who are developing not only low interest rates and not only Bank of England independence, but £40 billion of extra spending, and the new deal is delivering jobs where the Tories delivered despair.

Dr. Desmond Turner: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the royal commission on its report on the problems of continuing care for the elderly, caused by the acutely difficult and unsustainable system left to us by the previous Government after implementation of the Community Care (Residential Homes) Act 1993? Does he agree that the sooner the Government are able to address the recommendations of the report, with all the resource difficulties that are involved, the more grateful the British public will be?

The Prime Minister: We set up the royal commission and it says that it wants a full public debate on the


proposals; I hope that that takes place. We need a solution that stands the test of time. It is worth pointing out, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge, that, in the meantime, it is this Government who have been breaking down barriers between health and social services. We are providing an extra £750 million over three years to promote rehabilitation and prevention. We have introduced the new strategy for carers, which is worth £140 million over the three years. We must have the debate on the royal commission's report. We will come out with the best affordable solution possible. If we can manage to do that, we will have undertaken a task for the country which was avoided for 18 years under the previous Government.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister may have noticed recent newspaper reports that he is considering putting some money into the international manned space station. As much as he and I might like to compare notes on which of our colleagues we would like to put into orbit, does he accept that current moneys spent on space science and earth observation are very thinly spread, and that many excellent science projects could be backed by the Government if they were prepared to put further funds at their disposal, not least the Beagle 2 Mars lander project?

The Prime Minister: I have a feeling that we might just agree on the people we would put up in space. I also accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. We shall make a decision on the matter in the near future. What is important is that the money that is available is put into science projects that will really bring a benefit to the United Kingdom. When we make the decision, we shall announce it, and I shall write to him.

Miss Anne Begg: As you can see, Madam Speaker, as there are so many people on the Government Benches, more of us have taken to bringing our own seats.
I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been able to see a copy of this morning's Aberdeen Press and Journal. If he had, he would have read that the oil price has dropped to $10.91 a barrel—which is obviously quite a concern to my constituents, as it may affect their economic well-being. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the low oil price blows a huge hole in the economic policies of the Scottish National party, and that the biggest threat to my constituents' economic future is the SNP plan to divorce Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: Very little adds up with the SNP. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out that the drop in the oil price demonstrates the importance of our having a balanced economic strategy to develop the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government have not merely delivered a lower unemployment level in Scotland, more jobs for Scotland and lower mortgages for Scotland, but—if we pursue the

right stable economic policies—there will be a prosperous economic future for Scotland. That would not happen under separatism or with divorce.

Mr. Roger Gale: Three or four weeks ago, the Prime Minister made great play and many soundbites about how the nation owed a debt to carers. I wrote to him about two of my constituents—one of whom is a carer, and the other of whom is her disabled husband—who are being made homeless at least in part because of a failure of his Government's Department of Social Security. When he wrote back, he told me that the money owed to them had been paid, but he did nothing and suggested nothing about how they could be prevented from being made homeless. How does he dare to claim that he cares about carers? When he answers that question, will he also tell my elderly constituent, Mrs. Hollanby—who is currently awaiting assessment of a glaucomatous condition—the difference between a pending list, a waiting list, and a waiting for a waiting list?

The Prime Minister: On the first point—as I wrote to the hon. Gentleman, explaining the circumstances—we have done exactly what any Government would do in those circumstances. As he rightly said, it is not correct to suggest that the situation is all the result of the Department of Social Security. Secondly, on his other point, we are putting extra money into the national health service precisely to get the waiting lists down, after years of rising waiting lists under the previous Government. I remember that when the hon. Gentleman sat on the Government Benches, waiting lists were going up year after year, and he never said a word about them.

Judy Mallaber: Yesterday, we heard from the Health Secretary that 140,000 qualified nurses no longer work in the health service. May I tell my right hon. Friend of a nurse in my area who wants to return to work after maternity leave, but who cannot do so because the shift patterns are incompatible with her child care needs? I welcome the Health Secretary's statement that he has now told health trusts to offer family-friendly policies. Does the Prime Minister agree that all Departments should lead by example in offering and encouraging family-friendly policies, and that getting people back to work is good for families, good for the health service and good for the economy?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. The civil service is looking at how it can improve its flexibility in employing women with families, particularly younger families. My hon. Friend is right to say that a big problem in recruiting people back to nursing in the health service is the inflexibility of the present system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has pledged to change that. The child care tax credit and the additional money that we are putting into child care provision should also help. People must be allowed to balance the work that they need with the family that they love. That is the purpose of our policies.

Points of Order

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you deprecate this House constantly being left out of the loop on legislation. The minimum wage legislation comes into effect on 1 April, but the House has not discussed the regulations until today. The Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation is being asked to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1998 by regulations. The amended Act is then being used to make regulations. The regulations that we are being asked to pass initially are ultra vires.
Where is the Committee to go if it discovers that it cannot make the regulations that are to come into force on 1 April because the legislation is defective? The Department of Trade and Industry announced that it finished its consultations in November. Surely the House should not be asked to bring in such important regulations, which affect almost every employer in the land and a large number of employees, without proper notice to allow employers can take the necessary action.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I support my hon. Friend in his point of order. At this late stage, owing to the lack of consultation, a children's charity providing holidays for children from deprived backgrounds may have to close because of the extra costs resulting from the regulations.

Madam Speaker: As both hon. Gentlemen know, when regulations are laid is not a matter for the Chair but a matter for the Government. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is fully aware that I am not in charge of the business of the House. That is dealt with by the usual channels. He might approach them. As for his point about the Committee, the procedure is that in the first instance the matter must be resolved by the Committee. It is then open to the Committee to make a report to the House if it is not satisfied.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence—a Department which might be involved in the oil-for-food programme—to make a statement on how the destruction of an oil pipeline might affect Iraq's ability to take advantage of the programme?

Madam Speaker: No, I have not had any indication that any Department is seeking to make a statement on that. The hon. Gentleman was fortunate enough to catch my eye during Prime Minister's questions, when he put a short and succinct question to the Prime Minister—one that I rather approved of, because most questions are

too long. I tend to approve of his questions. On this occasion, however, he might have extended his question a little and got a little more information.

Mr. James Paice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) asked the Prime Minister when an invitation would be issued to the European Commission to send inspectors to examine our facilities before beef exports could resume. The Prime Minister replied:
We have of course invited the inspectors"—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 386.]
That afternoon, I tabled a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asking when the invitation was issued. On Monday this week, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he would reply as soon as possible.
I have a copy of a letter to the director-general of DG XXIV at the Commission from MAFF's chief veterinary officer, which was faxed to Brussels at 5.04 pm on Thursday, issuing that invitation to the inspectors. I have spoken to the recipient, who confirms that was the first that he knew of the invitation.
It seems plain to me that the Prime Minister misled the House last week, and that a panic-stricken Government rushed out an invitation the next day. Agriculture Ministers clearly do not know what is going on. Will you, Madam Speaker, instruct the Prime Minister to come to the House, apologise for his answer to my hon. Friend and tell the House and the industry what is really being done about getting the beef ban lifted?

Madam Speaker: I have no authority to instruct any Minister, let alone the Prime Minister, to come to the House. Opposition Front Benchers had ample opportunities today to put such questions to the Prime Minister if further elucidation was required—which it seems to have been.

BILLS PRESENTED

CROWN PREROGATIVES (PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL)

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Derek Foster, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Audrey Wise, presented a Bill to make the exercise of certain Crown prerogatives subject to the assent of the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 55].

XENOTRANSPLANTATION

Mr. Norman Baker presented a Bill to prohibit the transplant of living cells, tissues or organs from animals into humans: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 April, and to be printed [Bill 56].

Motor Accident Injury Compensation

Dr. Desmond Turner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure compensation for persons injured as a result of road traffic accidents.
My Bill seeks to deal with problems that remain outstanding. First, it takes a long time to secure any compensation payments for people who have been injured in road accidents. Under the Bill, rather than waiting for years, road accident victims would receive interim compensation within three months. Secondly, all of us who drive cars and take out comprehensive insurance probably think that we are covered. We know that our passengers are covered—they can normally sue for up to half a million pounds—but, as the small print shows, cover is limited to £5,000 for all but those who are exceedingly lucky and have gold-plated policies. To those who, through no fault of their own, but as a result of an accident that cannot be pinned on anyone else, become vegetables for the rest of their lives, £5,000 is nothing in comparison with the cost of maintaining themselves and, perhaps, their families for the rest of what would have been their working lives. The cover, such as it is, is grossly inadequate. Thirdly, there is the possibility of total evasion of any responsibility for the consequences of an accident.
Let me give a simple example. Let us suppose that someone driving down the high street is unfortunate enough to suffer a heart attack, become unconscious and accidentally drive the car into a bus queue, killing half the people in it. As the law stands, that person's insurance company can deny all liability, because the person was not in control at the time of the accident, and therefore cannot be blamed. The whole culture of blame leads to a great deal of hardship—not, fortunately, for a massive number of people, but the results can be stressful and harrowing for individuals, groups of individuals and families who are caught out.
It has long been recognised that a serious problem exists. A few years ago, the Lord Chancellor's Department took that problem seriously enough to issue a report that considered ways of tackling it. One suggestion was the establishment of a no-fault compensation fund. That suggestion did not find much favour. It was the first solution that occurred to me, but, as soon as I discussed it with others, I realised that it would get nowhere. I have approached the matter by way of the conventional structure of insurance.
Two constituency examples illustrate the problems that I have in mind. In one case, a young woman, her husband, her sister and her sister's husband were driving home from the weekly supermarket shopping when they were in collision with a police van, which veered on to the wrong side of the road and hit them head on. All the family were seriously injured and laid off from work for months on end. The young woman driving the car lost her baby—which was due in a month's time—and had to be hysterectomised to save her life because of her critical condition.
For two months, the driver of the vehicle—who was to be prosecuted for dangerous driving—tried the automatism defence. He tried to pretend that instead of having simply fallen asleep at the wheel, he had suffered

a blackout because of a previously undiagnosed brain problem. Had he succeeded, the insurance company would not have accepted any liability or paid any compensation.
Fortunately, the family were able to keep their home. They had no way of making their mortgage payments and ran into heavy mortgage arrears. They were able to keep their home only with the support of friends and family. In addition to suffering horrendous physical injuries, enormous physical stress and emotional trauma, they had enormous financial stress. It is those stress factors and inadequacies that I wish to remove.
The second example is of a man who, while driving along the motorway, fell asleep at the wheel. He ended upside down, and is now a paraplegic. He does not contest the fact that it was his fault, but he now requires a total 24-hour care package from the local authority, and he must be housed at the expense of the state. The costs to the state over his life will be probably about £1 million. If an insurance system equivalent to the one that I am proposing had been in operation, the costs would have been borne by insurance, instead of being picked up by the state.
I propose, first, that there should be interim compensation payments within three months of an accident and, secondly, that automatism should be eliminated as an excuse for evading liability in road accidents. To finance the system, there should be compulsory appropriate first-party cover in motor insurance. I have talked to the Association of British Insurers, which could live with such a system and would be happy to operate it.
Everyone has reservations about increases in insurance premiums, but they would not be outrageous—they would be of the order of 5 per cent., and up to an absolute maximum of 10 per cent. For that, people would have the peace of mind of knowing that they and their family were totally covered. We would not have a situation where everyone could walk away from an accident, leave a mess and deny liability.
I fear that the proposal does not have Government support. We are not at loggerheads—it is much more polite than that. However, there is difficulty, because the proposal is thought to be no-fault compensation. It is not. It is no different in principle from the way in which we regard the insurance of the car.
We are quite happy to deal with the bent metal through the insurance mechanism, but not the bent people. The Bill advocates dealing properly with the bent people. It will save enormous problems for the few—we hope—who suffer very badly. It is workable and cost-sustainable and I think that it will save considerable public expenditure.
The problem will not go away, and, even if I cannot persuade my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to lift his objections this Session, I hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously in the near future, so that we can resolve it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Desmond Turner, Mr. Michael Jabez Foster, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews and Dr. Michael Clark.

MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURY COMPENSATION

Dr. Desmond Turner accordingly presented a Bill to ensure compensation for persons injured as a result of road traffic accidents: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March, and to be printed [Bill 57].

Orders of the Day — House of Lords Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress 16 February].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 2

REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As it has been agreed that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, the remaining clauses should fall naturally into place as consequences of it. Clause 2 deals with the fact that, under the common law, confirmed in the case concerning Bristol, South-East in 1964 and my right hon. Friend who is now the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), peers are prevented from voting in elections to the House of Commons and from standing as candidates.
The clause allows hereditary peers to vote in parliamentary elections and to stand for election to, and be Members of, the House of Commons. It is an appropriate response to their loss of the right to sit personally in Parliament by reason of their hereditary peerages.
Some of the disadvantages, as well as the privileges, of peerage are tied to membership of the House of Lords. The excusing by right of peers from jury service, for example, is a statutory bar arising from their membership of the House. That will lapse with their loss of membership of the House of Lords.
It was confirmed, however, in the case fought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, as he reminded us on Second Reading, that some of the attributes of peerage are found in the blood. The status of not being a commoner, and being therefore ineligible to have any direct connection with the House of Commons, is one of them, so it is necessary to overturn, by statute, peers' inability to vote, stand or sit. The rights will not flow automatically from the loss of membership of the House of Lords.
That is the purpose of the clause and I do not think that anyone, in fairness, could object to it. I should add for the sake of completeness that clause 4(3) contains the transitional provisions needed to ensure that effect can be given to the clause by the time that the 2000–01 electoral register comes into force.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not dissociate myself in any way from the thrust of the clause, but a question arises on which I would appreciate the Minister's views. The hereditary peers will be allowed to vote at future general elections, but they are summoned to Parliament personally for the duration of the Parliament and, being at the present Parliament, they are deprived of the right to vote because they represent themselves. Is there not a serious constitutional anomaly concerning their


civic rights if they are deprived of their right to sit in another place halfway through a Parliament and not at the end of it?

Mr. Hoon: I was about to deal with that point. If the hon. Gentleman reads clause 4(3), he will see that we propose that the Secretary of State may by order make such transitional provisions as he considers appropriate about the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages to vote at elections for the House of Commons or for the European Parliament. That provision is to deal with precisely the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. It would allow the Home Secretary to make appropriate provision to allow those hereditary peers who have lost their right to sit in the other place to be included on electoral registers in time for them both to vote and stand before any subsequent general election. That is why clause 4(3) has been included in the Bill.

Mr. Grieve: I follow the Minister's argument, but it does not get round the problem: the peers will be disfranchised for the remainder of this Parliament from having representation, either in the upper House by themselves, or in this House by virtue of having been able to exercise their right to vote at the general election. That would be a serious denial of civic rights to 759 people. I would be interested to hear the rationale behind the proposal, and the Minister's view on that point, which I have made on several occasions to the Leader of the House without getting a reply.

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. As a distinguished lawyer, he will know that it is not usually appropriate for Parliament to legislate retrospectively, which is what he suggests. If we were to remedy the problem that he describes, we would change the rules retrospectively and, if we did that, he would be the first to challenge us.

Mr. Grieve: I was not suggesting that we should alter matters retrospectively. My point was that, to keep an equality of civic rights, the measure to deprive the hereditary peers of their right to sit should come into force at the end of a Parliament, when they can then vote for the election of a new one.

Mr. Hoon: As I have said, the provision in clause 4(3), if accepted by the Committee and ultimately by the House, will allow transitional provisions to be made that will give the hereditary peers the opportunity to vote in any subsequent general and European elections. That seems to me to be an appropriate response to the problem the hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In the event of the Government accepting the Cranborne proposition, will it follow that clause 2 would also have to be amended, or would any hereditary peers sitting as a result be disqualified from voting or being elected to this House?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to speculate about an amendment that may or may not be accepted by the other place or by this House. It would not be wise for me to follow his speculation, but I would say that it is not clear—if such a proposition were to be

accepted—whether those peers would sit by virtue of their hereditary peerages or as a result of some other mechanism.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I understood fully the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), but it does not get round the problem. Nobody is asking for retrospective legislation—rather, we are asking for fairness in legislation, although I can see the Minister scoffing at the mere suggestion that we might request that the legislation should be fair. The peers could not vote at the general election because they had representation in their own right in the other place. That will be taken away before the next election and they will have been denied their human and civic rights to vote for people to represent them in this House.

Mr. Hoon: Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman's problem the fact that the peers have been enjoying rights in the House of Lords since the general election and will continue to enjoy those rights unless and until the Bill is passed?

Mr. Evans: The point at issue is the date on which the Bill will be enacted, and on which the hereditary peers will be denied their right to sit and vote in the other place. We suggest that the natural time at which that should occur would be the next general election when they could use their civic right to vote for representation in the House of Commons. That is fairness. The Minister must appreciate that the timing of the Bill's enactment as currently planned will mean that 700 or so peers who are not part of any arrangement by which some hereditary peers may sit as life peers after the Bill is passed, will have lost their right to vote for representation in this Parliament.
No one denies the simplicity of clause 2, but questions arise because the Leader of the House has said that she is minded to accept at some stage an amendment tabled by Lord Weatherill or others in the other place that would allow a certain number of the present hereditary peers to remain after the Bill becomes an Act. Three questions arise, and I should like the Minister to deal with them.
First, what will happen in the other place to those who will be among the 91, or any other number, who are retained?

Dr. George Turner: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I have become used to the idea that hon. Members must address the business of the Committee as listed on the amendment paper. Must we endure hour after hour of "what ifs", or of matters that may arise at a later date? Would you make it clear to the Committee whether hypothetical questions such as those being put by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) are properly the business of the Committee today?

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On a point of order, Sir Alan.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Let me deal first with the first point of order.
I have heard nothing out of order. The questions raised are matters of debate. I am concerned to ensure that points made are relevant to the Question before the Committee.


There is, conceivably, some overlap between the points being made on clause 2 stand part and matters that we may reach when we consider clause 4. However, I am satisfied at the moment that all that has been said has been in order.

Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have been led astray, so I should mention that we are in Committee.

Mr. Evans: Thank you, Sir Alan.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What happened to the other point of order?

Mr. Evans: The point of order has been more than adequately dealt with. Labour Members like to close down debate whenever they can, but the House of Commons is here to scrutinise the Bill before us. If we cannot do so here, where can we do so?

Mr. Tyrie: Has not the problem that we have just encountered arisen as a direct result of our having before the Committee a Bill which will almost certainly be amended in the other place? We are not being given the opportunity to debate what it is almost certainly the Government's intention to put on to the statute book.

The Chairman: Order. This is not a debate about a debate. It is about clause 2.

Mr. Evans: In that case, I shall add nothing to my hon. Friend's excellent intervention, Sir Alan.
Clause 2 is about a certain number of people who will retain their titles, but lose their rights to sit and vote in the other place. However, a number of hereditary peers will receive sitting and voting rights after the Bill becomes an Act. However great that number may be, does the simplicity of the clause mean that those peers will have no right to vote at a general election because they are continuing to represent themselves in the other place?
The second question relates to the number of peers who will be elected by other peers in the other place. A number of hereditary peers will help to elect a group of peers who will remain in the upper House for some indeterminate period of time. We do not know when stage 2 will come about. We are talking only about a transitional House, which could be with us for a long time. We simply do not know how long it will exist. There is the example of other changes, such as that of 1911. It took 88 years for us to get round to this reform. Who is to say that it will not be a further 88 years before we get round to the reform now proposed?
4 pm
Will the hereditaries who will be able to vote for other hereditaries to remain in the Lords be allowed to vote at general elections and or even stand for this House, even though they will have helped to elect legislators for the other place? That is a straightforward question, but it is one of the anomalies thrown up by clause 2. Such peers

will be allowed to vote once for a group of people in the upper House and once for someone in this House. The Minister may say that that will affect only those who vote in the election for hereditary representatives. All hereditaries will be eligible to vote for the peers to remain in the upper House, but some may not take up their voting rights. Is the Minister about to say that peers who vote for legislators in the upper House cannot stand for this House or vote for legislators in the lower House? If they do not take part in the first election, will they have full rights? That would mean that they would vote only once, for Members of this place.
The Minister and the Leader of the House think that this is a simple Bill, but it has not been thought through. As with many of the constitutional changes, the Government have not fully considered its effects. Will the Minister direct his attention to some of the anomalies raised by clause 2?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is the first time that I have participated in a debate on the second Chamber. I have an interest to declare in that, in the fullness of time, I stand to inherit a hereditary peerage and could benefit from the provisions of clause 2 as drafted. I therefore have a personal interest in it, which I make plain. You will perhaps forgive me, Sir Alan, if I do not declare that interest in every debate in which I might subsequently participate.
I wish to support what my hon. Friends have said, but first I want to tell the Minister that I broadly support clause 2. I have long thought that the second Chamber needed fundamental reform. I believe that we should start with functions. Its powers need to be substantially increased so as to be a check on this House. That can be done only if we are prepared to confer proper legitimacy on it. I favour a second Chamber that is wholly, or very largely, directly elected. The consequence of that is that I support clause 2 as a natural corollary of my general position.
I come now to the personal point, which causes great concern. It is known that the Weatherill amendment—or is it the Cranborne amendment?—may well receive sympathetic attention from the Government. I would be deeply concerned if, as a consequence of creating a college of hereditary peers capable of electing 91 or any other number of representative peers in the second Chamber, people such as myself who may wish to remain a Member of this House, but still take a peerage, would find ourselves disfranchised or disabled from doing so. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The Government must address it, because people such as myself would be deeply distressed if the consequence of accepting the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment was disapplication of the provisions of clause 2 to persons such as me and one or two other right hon. and hon. Members.
I have one other point in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said. There will have to be some amendment to clause 2 if we accept the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment. Once we create a college of hereditary peers who elect representative hereditary peers to sit pro tem in the other place, unless we disqualify that group—those who are in the electoral college—we shall have given them two votes. We shall


have given them the ability to vote within the electoral college for representative peers as well as to vote for people in this House.

Mr. Tyrie: It could not happen to a better group.

Mr. Hogg: That may be so, but the question whether it is democratic is one to which the Committee must turn its attention.
So I have a personal interest that I do not seek to conceal. I do not wish to find myself unable to take advantage of clause 2 should I decide to do so. There is a serious problem. It cannot be resolved finally today, but I hope that the Minister of State will understand the force of the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and I have made and that he will deal with the problem should the Cranborne amendment be moved and accepted.

Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I agree with a great deal of what he said. I was interested by his choice of words in his initial remark: he said that he was one of those who would benefit from the Bill. Anyone who believes in democracy will agree with him. He will be relieved of the duty to go and sit in another place. He will be able to continue sitting and speaking in a democratic Chamber chosen by the people of a constituency and to be accountable to them. The things that go to the heart are the things which we value most in our democracy.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will benefit, it follows that those who are left in the other Chamber—the life peers chosen not by heredity but by patronage—will be at a distinct democratic disadvantage. The clause discriminates against life peers if we believe, as I do and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does, that to sit in a democratic Chamber is an advantage, a benefit and a precious right. The condemnation of people in the other House to be the only people in our democracy who are not part of it is something which the House ought to consider before it proceeds with the Bill.
Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that the Bill is a fine and historic piece of legislation. I agree specifically with the clause in so far as it advances the argument. However, it has the unfortunate consequence of, probably inadvertently, disadvantaging life peers. Hereditary peers gain enormously from the clause, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. They become electors. They become eligible for election. They can be chosen by vote. They will sit in this House, which is about as great a privilege as anyone can have in our democracy. But the life peers will not be chosen by the people and be accountable to them. They will be chosen by oligarchs. They will be chosen by the few—oligos. That is an extremely sad and wrong position for them to be in. It is extraordinary for this House, as a result of a reform taking us into the 21st century, to be creating a new oligarchy—that is what the new electoral college will be, and that is wrong. It can be put right. The Bill is not the end of the story.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will emphasise that when the royal commission looks at the next stage it will be able to correct the inadvertent

defects and consequences of the clause and the Bill. If he does not, and if the royal commission decides that the second Chamber will not be part of our democracy, because it is not directly and democratically elected but chosen by oligarchs, that will be wholly wrong and we should be extremely wary of that. In my view, and that of many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, we shall have reformed one enormous defect of the other place—its hereditary principle—but not the other great defect, which is that the second Chamber is neither chosen by, nor directly accountable to, the people of this country. It is not part of our direct democracy.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give the Committee some reassurance that Lord Wakeham and the royal commission will give that matter serious consideration. One of the commission's options, as laid out in the White Paper, is to consider a directly elected Chamber that would avoid any taint of oligarchy. Only then can Members of that Chamber benefit in the way that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham rightly tells us he, too, will benefit.

Mr. Grieve: I endorse most of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the remarks about the long-term issues that the Committee must address. We are concerned with stage 1—we hope that it will be a stage 1 and not, as I greatly fear, a prolonged stage during which we become bogged down considering what should happen next. It is an interesting reflection of the bizarre way in which we are going about the process that we end up with all those small but important points, such as the one made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). If the Weatherill amendment were to be accepted—as we have been told that it will—we would end up with the potential anomaly of Members of the House of Lords having two votes.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have been told is that the amendment will be accepted if the Government get their way and succeed in parliamentary blackmail against their lordships?

Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps I was presuming the success of the blackmailing tactics that the Government might employ. Based on the words of the President of the Council, I must accept that there is an intention, in certain circumstances, to accept that amendment. In that case, a number of bizarre constitutional anomalies will be created, whereby certain hereditary peers will be given the right to elect representatives in both the other House and this place unless an adjustment is made.
I should like to drag the Minister back to the point that I made in my intervention. It is only a small point, but the Government seem to have made a notable attempt to slip away from the central thrust of the matter and not to address my point properly. When the Bill is passed, there will be a most peculiar anomaly: hereditary peers who did not have the right to vote at the last election, because they had the right to represent themselves for the duration of the coming Parliament, will lose that right halfway through that Parliament without ever having had any right to influence the formation of the House of Commons. It might be said that the numbers are so small and


insignificant in relation to the total electorate that that does not matter; or that, even if it does matter, the Government have decided in their wisdom that it should not matter, because they consider it to be an accident and that they cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the Committee if that is the case.
I can recall a number of results in the last election that might well have been different if the total number of hereditary peers living in particular constituencies had had the right to vote—for example, Winchester, which is stuffed full of hereditary peers and where, after the first count, the majority was only two. The matter is not completely academic.
A principle is involved. Not long ago, we incorporated the European convention on human rights, which has a specific clause about the need for fairness in elections and for the legislature to reflect the will and the expression of the will of the electorate. We are breaking that convention and I want to know why it is so necessary to do so in the middle of a Parliament, whereas the proper procedure would be for the changes to come about at the end of a Parliament. If we did that, we could roll stages 1 and 2 into a single process. We could establish the clear principle that the hereditary peers will go by legislating now on stage 1 and then move on to stage 2.
I have raised a legitimate point, and I would like an explanation of why certain people's civic rights will be discarded arbitrarily by this legislation.

Mr. Alan Hurst: Several interesting points have been raised in this discussion—notably by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has just spoken. It should be possible to deal with the fairly minor anomaly of losing a position in the House of Lords as a result of the hereditary principle and then having the right to vote in a democratic election. If my memory serves me correctly, peers of the realm appear on electoral registers so that they may vote in local authority and European elections. Therefore, it should be relatively simple to amend the process, as the procedure and the lists are already in place.
On the point about how many hereditary peers may be affected, I believe that there are some six or seven peers in my division—some of whom may be life peers. While I am never over-confident about election outcomes, just as the law does not take account of trifles, we should sometimes be bolder in our analysis of how things turn out. That issue can be dealt with.
I could not follow—it may be my fault—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who said that life peers would be disadvantaged by the present proposals. I cannot understand why that should be so. If life peers are to remain in the upper House—I believe that the upper House should not comprise any peers at all, but that is a matter for another day—they will presumably have chosen to go to that place. In that sense, they are in a different position from hereditary peers, who are there as a result of the consequences of history and their ancestors.

Mr. Fisher: Is it not true that life peers chose to join an hereditary House that comprised a vast majority of

hereditary peers? Many life peers chose to move to the upper House in an attempt to dilute the influence in another place and act as a democratic restraint upon an hereditary House. Many would not have chosen to go to the other place if they had known that it would be democratically elected in the future. Many life peers came from this place and a lifetime of representing and being accountable to people. They benefited from and cherish democracy, and they went to the other place only as a second-best option when their time had passed here.

Mr. Hurst: That may be so in part—it is not possible to read the motives of each appointment to the upper House over time, or to say whether people went to the other place to dilute the influence of hereditary peers or as a last resort because their careers were slipping. It is difficult to analyse the reasons at this stage. In any event, if hereditary peers are removed, by numbers alone the upper House will become more powerful because of the nature of those who then constitute it. If men and women go to the other place as life peers, and hereditary peers disappear from the Chamber, the influence of the former group will be much greater.

Mr. Hogg: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about life peers—they have made a choice. However, the hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the fact that Ministers have adopted a different approach regarding hereditary peers of the first creation, of whom there is at least one in the House of Lords at present, the noble Lord Whitelaw. As I understand it, he is able to take advantage of clause 2—although he has chosen to be an hereditary peer—whereas the great class of life peers cannot. There is already a distinction.

Mr. Hurst: I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I am sure that my Front-Bench colleagues will have noted his concerns, which may be dealt with in detail when the Bill returns from the House of Lords. In many ways, our debate on this clause is hypothetical, because we are assuming that certain changes will be made in the upper Chamber, and that they will be accepted when the Bill returns here. It is not for me to suggest whether we are straying from the confines of the matter before us, but in many ways we are speculating about what may occur.
Those points may be dealt with in due course, but I remain unconvinced by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that life peers will be disadvantaged. I should have thought that they would be advantaged by the current proposals if we then moved on to having an elected upper House, which I trust we would not. If we took that course, it might be open to them to disclaim their life peerages.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been of assistance in pointing out to the Committee something that I must now emphasise. Although it is possible to anticipate certain changes, there will be a proper place to deal with them in detail, and the Committee might deny the House the opportunity of doing so at the proper length and in the proper detail if too much is said now. If certain changes are made in the other place, they will come to


this place and there will be an opportunity for debate and amendment, so I am not minded to allow this debate to run on endlessly.

Mr. Eric Forth: Bearing in mind what you have just said, Sir Alan, it strikes me that nothing could illustrate better the difficulty in which we find ourselves than the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). We seem to be debating a clause on the assumption that it will end up being different, and that gives the debate a rather unreal quality. However, we must deal with that.
We seem to be saying that under clause 2, hereditary peers would be able to vote for candidates for the House of Commons, stand as candidates for the House of Commons and, if there were an election in the upper House, vote for their equals to become members of a category that we have not yet defined and which may or may not exist. We are now considering the possibility of hereditary peers taking part in a series of democratic processes that are oddly unrelated.
Making sense of the Bill, giving it coherence and setting it in the context of what we believe to be stage 1—never mind any stage that may lie beyond—is proving rather difficult for me and, I suspect, for most hon. Members present. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) illustrated that point well. We shall now be asked to approve of the clause although we have the strong suspicion that it will be irrelevant sooner or later. That is an unusual position in which to put a Committee. We usually legislate in good faith and respond to what the Government of the day or hon. Members have to say about a Bill on the assumption that what we see is what we will get, but here we are faced with the odd situation of being pretty certain that what we see is not what we will get. We shall end up with something different.
Dealing satisfactorily with that question is a difficult proposition. We shall be guided, of course, by you, Sir Alan, and you will keep us on the straight and narrow. However, because we shall be kept on the straight and narrow, and the problem will recur throughout our deliberations on the Bill, we must ask ourselves how valid or legitimate our deliberations can be given the circumstances in which we find ourselves and the Government's threat or promise—I am not sure which it is—about what may or may not happen when the Bill leaves here and goes to the other place. That question is left hanging over us.
I have another difficulty on which I would be grateful for guidance from the Minister. I am left wondering whether the Minister is absolutely satisfied as to the propriety of the procedures set out in this clause, and in the Bill so far as we know it, should there be an election at any time between now and the expiry of the five-year fixed maximum term of this Parliament.
It is possible to conceive of circumstances in which an election called by the Prime Minister might intervene at one stage or another of the proposals on which we are deliberating.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is making a serious judgment, and he is right to do so. The transitional arrangements, which are set out later in the Bill, and which would, if enacted, give hereditary peers the right to

vote in elections, are permissive, not mandatory. If we want to ensure that, if the Bill is passed, hereditary peers have a right to vote and so on, the provisions that we will address later need to be mandatory rather than permissive.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall of course take into account what he says, although I will not pursue it at this stage, Sir Alan, because you might take a rather dim view of my doing so. I hope for guidance from the Minister at this stage, as this point will become relevant later.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us where he feels the calling of a general election by the Prime Minister would leave the Bill, in whatever stage we had reached in our deliberations of it or with regard to stages 1 and 2 or whatever. I say that with particular reference to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in respect of safeguarding the rights of Members of the present upper House when they might be being changed by the Bill. We would want to make sure that they would still be validated in the event of an election being called, perhaps unexpectedly, for reasons that none of us can know now, perhaps not even the Prime Minister. It is an important point.
It is peculiar to our electoral arrangements that the Prime Minister has the power to call an election at any time. As soon as we start—

The Chairman: Order. I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Essentially, what he is saying is more suitable for a Third Reading debate rather than for the clause 2 stand part debate, because of its wide applicability.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Sir Alan. I shall not pursue the matter, but I was making my point in the context of the words "voting at elections". I have probably made my point sufficiently, and the Minister has understood it. I may return to the issue at a later stage, as you suggest.
All I wanted to say is that we are in difficult waters, so it is especially important that the Minister should guide us at this stage and explain how he sees matters developing. In that way, we might have a better context in which to conduct our subsequent debates; we might be better informed and, I hope, reassured that nothing in the Bill will create difficulties not foreseen by the Government and not covered either by subsequent amendments or by the text of the Bill itself. They are the reassurances that I seek at this stage, and I look forward to the Minister giving them.

Dr. George Turner: I shall make two points. First, I am surprised that the Committee wants to waste time now discussing business which might properly be conducted later. If we were earing complaints from the Opposition that the Government were not giving sufficient time to discuss something which was before the Committee because it had been moved as an amendment in another place, I should have considerable sympathy with them because I do not think that constitutional changes should be made without proper debate. However, what we are achieving—

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Will you confirm that we cannot conceivably be wasting time


unless you were to tell us that we were doing so, and that this is a legitimate debate, and will continue to be so for as long as you are guiding us and permitting it to continue?

The Chairman: The right hon. Member slightly anticipates me. I was hoping that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) was not inadvertently implying criticism of the Chair for allowing this debate to take place. Clearly, all that I have heard has been in order. I have given the Committee a ruling on the limits of this debate, but it is a perfectly legitimate debate.

Dr. Turner: I was not disputing your ruling, Sir Alan; I was trying to support the one that you have just made. You suggested that, if we prolonged this debate, it may prevent time from being allocated to a more appropriate debate. I was simply urging through you, Sir Alan, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to waste too much time on such a hypothetical matter.
Opposition Members are seeking to protect the privileged few, who for many years, as well as the first two years of this Parliament, have been able to vote on legislation without having been democratically elected. I know that many Labour Members believe that an end to such privilege cannot come too soon. Any injustice that results in a lack of representation in this House, but not elsewhere, for only one half or two thirds of a Parliament is minor indeed compared with the privilege that many families have enjoyed for centuries.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has done an injustice to what has been said from the Opposition Benches. I can only assume that he has not been listening very carefully. I do not particularly blame him for that. I, for one, am not defending the hereditary peerage. I want an elected Chamber. I know that that is the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), as it is of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who will seek to catch your eye, Sir Alan. To argue that we are seeking to protect entrenched interests in the other place is to misunderstand what has been said in this debate.

Dr. Turner: My mother used to say, "Watch and see what they do, as well as what they say." Opposition Members have been in favour of reform of the other place for 80 years, but it has not happened yet. I want to ensure that it happens in this Parliament. Those who seek to delay such reform are, like their party for most of this century, seeking to protect the privileged few. This House needs to get on with the Bill, and agree this clause.

Mr. David Winnick: Conservative Members say that they are not defending the hereditary principle, but during the 18 years—let alone before then—in which they were in government, not a single step was taken to do away with it. How have they suddenly become so radical?

Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend answers his own question. I have heard very little from Conservative Members about their great concern to reform the other place.

Mr. Martin Linton: On the alleged disfranchisement of hereditary peers for part of this

Parliament, does my hon. Friend agree that they knew at the election that their right to vote and sit in the Lords may be abolished? Indeed, they have known that that was Parliament's intention since 1911, from the preamble to the Parliament Act. Did they not know that when they claimed their peerages? Have they not, since 1963, had the right to disclaim their peerages and stand for and be elected to the House of Commons?

Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend's point is valid.
The driving principle behind my strong support for this measure in our manifesto is that, without reform of the other place, and from what I have seen in the short time that I have been in this place, we would get but a fraction of our business through in the final two years of this Parliament, and therefore fail to deliver on our manifesto commitments. That was well illustrated in the past 12 months. The sooner that this Bill is enacted—and I support this clause as part of it—the better.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was concerned that the debate had been, if not constrained, certainly coloured by potential hypothetical amendments which may be introduced in another place. That is not so much anomalous as absurd and insulting, because such amendments were tabled by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), and rejected by the Committee. That should be the end of the matter. It strikes me as odd that we should continue as though that had not happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out the injustice that hereditary peers would suffer, certainly for the remainder of the Parliament, if they were, in effect, disfranchised. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) discounted that on the ground that their votes would have been unlikely to affect the result in any way. With the greatest respect, I do not think that that is the point.
I know that the hon. Member for Braintree is something of an enthusiast for the British electoral system, of which we enjoy the benefits now, and has suspicions about continental intrusions into that system. One of the arguments which is advanced for such intrusions is that, if one casts a vote that is not for the winning candidate, it is, in effect, a wasted vote. I fear that, by discounting the votes of hereditary peers in that manner, the hon. Gentleman is playing into the hands of his enemies on the central question of the validity of our electoral system.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) went even further and suggested that, as the hereditaries had known for some time that the reform was liable to happen, they could accept that jeopardy. In a democracy, it is important that the system should be seen to be principled and fair. The obvious remedy is to delay implementation of the measure until the end of the Parliament.

Mr. Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, since 1963, hereditary peers could have voted in general elections or stood for election to Parliament simply by disclaiming their peerages?

Mr. Swayne: That is true, but those peers had no wish to do so. It is absurd to say they should have done so in anticipation of a measure such as clause 2.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that his potential support for a measure such as clause 2 was conditioned by his enthusiasm to see the other House strengthened, that that required an elected House, for which the clause was an important corollary, and that that was an argument for supporting the clause. I am rather persuaded by that argument, but I have reservations.
One reservation is that perhaps we are projecting into the other House desires that should be focused on the House of Commons. By projecting those desires into the potential strength of another House, we may undermine the coherence of the entire constitution. I remain to be persuaded of the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Many Members—certainly many Conservative Members—have drawn attention to the independent nature of members of the hereditary peerage, but the clause would give those independent members a means of standing for the House of Commons, of improving the independent-minded nature of its Members and, therefore, the overall quality of Members' scrutiny. My view of that argument is that it will take a long time to take effect, whereas, very shortly, we shall be deprived of the independent views of hereditary peers in the other place. I prefer the principle that we should not change what we have before we know precisely with what we are replacing it. For that reason, I am against the clause standing part of the Bill.

Mr. Tyrie: To take up some of the detailed points which have been made, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out that the transitional arrangements in clause 4 were permissive and not mandatory. I shall be grateful if the Minister will explain why that is so and why the arrangement cannot be made mandatory. Is this in any way connected with the possibility that another clause will be added in another place? This clause may be sitting here to enable the Bill to go through later, with the addition of the Weatherill amendment.
Anomalies have been raised in respect of people finding themselves in a privileged position for a brief period in the other place if the Bill is passed. One way of dealing with that is to consider delaying implementation until the end of the Parliament, rather than the end of the Session.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have selected an amendment, which I expect to call later, about commencement and duration. I therefore counsel him not to refer to those matters now. It would be inappropriate to do so and it would not enable the hon. Gentleman to expand on them very much under a further group of amendments. I think that he is raising matters that should be left until later.

Mr. Tyrie: May I point out, Sir Alan, that the anomalies derive from clause 2 and that there is an inevitable interaction between clauses 2 and 4 in that respect? It is inconceivable that we should discuss how to go about implementing clause 2 without considering the transitional arrangements. Such arrangements are integral to the problem. However, I shall not pursue the matter. I merely say that, if we were to follow your ruling to its

conclusion, we would be required to debate part of clause 2 when considering clause 4, which I think would be equally messy.

The Chairman: Order. On another interpretation, I would have to rule that we are debating the Bill as it is, not as it might become. There will be an opportunity, as there is in any bicameral system, for the House of Commons to face other proposals at a later stage. There is nothing new in that. I have allowed a stand part debate on clause 2 on the understanding that it is a general debate by virtue of being a stand part debate. Other details will be dealt with under my selection of amendments.

Mr. Tyrie: Thank you, Sir Alan, for your ruling. As I said a moment ago, I was not intending to pursue the matter any further. However, I would be grateful to receive an answer from the Minister.
Clause 2 will remove the common law disqualifications on hereditary peers to sit in the House of Commons or to vote in general elections. A more drastic approach that hereditary peers can take is to exercise their right to renounce their peerages under the Peerage Act 1963. That route was opened up—it has already been discussed this afternoon to a degree—after a struggle by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is not in his place, Alec Douglas-Home and Quintin Hogg, the father of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. They all decided that the House of Commons was a better place than the Lords to pursue a political career. In a way, this is a nobler place, because it carries democratic legitimacy.
This is not a suitable opportunity to debate those matters, and I do not intend to do so. I merely say that the interim House may find itself so shorn of credibility and so evidently a patronage-dominated House that life peers feel the need to have the right of a disclaimer such as that which hereditary peers already enjoy.
Life peers are to be discriminated against in one sense. They will be stuck in what may become a wholly neutered and irrelevant Chamber. Interim Houses have a habit of lasting a long time. Life peers had the choice of deciding whether to join the current upper House, but they have not had the choice of deciding whether to join a putative—probably severely damaged—rump of a House, which we shall have to know henceforth as the "interim Chamber".
I ask Ministers to consider offering the right to life peers of moving from the Lords to the Commons by extending the disclaimer provisions of the 1963 Act. My new clause 22, would have that effect. Although it has not been selected, I should still be very interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the Government might view such a provision sympathetically.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is dealing with the interesting point, which was dealt with also by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), that the hereditaries should have got out when they were given notice to do so, in 1963 or whenever, and that they therefore should not feel aggrieved at not having been able to vote at the previous general election. If life peers are given the same power to get out, we will not know what the stage 2 House


of Lords will look like. It could well be that life peers, too, are not only denied the right to vote at general elections but thrown out halfway through a Parliament.

Mr. Tyrie: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that that would be iniquitous. Hereditary peers are given a one-off choice—they have one year—to renounce their peerage. The Government should certainly consider making some provision for the right to be exercised at any time, rather than for it to be restricted or time limited. I should be grateful if the Minister would address that issue also.

Mr. Hogg: As we are in Committee, Sir Alan, I gather that it is perfectly in order for hon. Members to speak twice in a debate. I should like to ask the Minister—I ask now so that I do not have to intervene in his speech—for his interpretation on one point.
On the right provided in clause 2(a), for hereditary peers to vote at elections, and the "transitional provision" right provided in clause 4(3), my understanding is that the clause 2(a) voting rights will come into effect automatically at the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed and that those rights are not dependent on the transitional arrangements provided in clause 4(3). If I am wrong about that, and the voting rights are dependent on the clause 4(3) transitional arrangements, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—and I—must be right in saying that the rights should be mandatory. Will the Minister tell us about the relationship between the two provisions?

Mr. Hoon: The Committee should congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on setting the tone for this debate. His ingenuity in drafting questions suggests that he may have missed his vocation. Unfortunately, there are not many vacancies for mediaeval philosophers these days—but clearly he has a future in counting angels on pinheads.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley purported to ask me three questions, but he asked me only one. I had already answered the question from the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), but the hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked me the same one. I give him the same answer: it is not necessary for us to speculate now about what other amendments might be passed in another place. It remains to be seen whether we shall have a debate on those matters.

Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Leader of the House has already said that she is minded to accept the Weatherill amendment when it is tabled in the other place? Does he accept that that is the Government's position?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there will be an opportunity to debate such an amendment when and if it is passed. I am sure that he would not want to anticipate that debate today, or to spend unnecessary time in Committee considering the rather arcane questions that he asked.
Opposition Members occasionally complain that the Government anticipate the results of votes and take votes for granted. Is that not what Opposition Members are

doing by suggesting that that amendment will, at some stage or other, be debated in Committee or in the House? We are simply working on the basis of the text that is before the Committee. We hope that that text will come before the House, but that depends on the outcome of votes.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made some more thoughtful points. He referred sensibly to the situation that might arise in relation to a college of hereditary peers, but he answered his question by saying that he would seek to address the House should any further amendment be debated. I should prefer to leave the matter on that basis. It would be more sensible to wait until there was such an amendment—if there was one—before going into such details.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of clause 4(3) and its relationship to clause 2(a). They do not depend on each other. However, I draw the opposite conclusion. The provisions in clause 4(3) should be permissive rather than mandatory, because we might not need them. Changes might not be needed in the electoral register, so it is more sensible to have the maximum flexibility available.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister's point is fair to an extent. However, does he agree that, if there were a by-election before the end of this Session—which might happen—it would be important, if we were to do justice by electors, to make provision by transitional arrangements for the right to vote and to stand?

Mr. Hoon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would consider that in such an eventuality, but we are getting into unnecessary detail which does not assist our discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) wondered whether life peers might be discriminated against by the provisions. I do not agree with him. The Bill is not about the rights of life peers, but about the rights of hereditary peers. Life peers will not leave the other place if the Bill is passed, so there is no reason to give them the right to vote in elections to the House of Commons. They do not need a Member of Parliament to represent them here because they can represent themselves. Moreover, they have made an informed decision to accept a life peerage, with all the benefits and penalties that that implies.

Mr. Tyrie: Does the Minister accept that the benefits and penalties will be fundamentally altered by the reform?

Mr. Hogg: The company in the Dining Room will be different.

Mr. Tyrie: The company in the Dining Room will be completely different, and there will be many other changes besides. If the House is fundamentally changed, it should be right to give the life peers an opportunity to decide whether they wish to remain there. If the place is not being fundamentally changed, why are we going ahead with the reform?

Mr. Hoon: I was about to deal with a point that the hon. Gentleman had raised. No one is forced to accept a


life peerage. As we heard on Second Reading, there is usually a queue of people anxious for such preference. In those circumstances, we do not need to worry unduly about the position of life peers, not least because, if the Bill is passed, their ability to represent themselves in the other place will be strengthened. Instead of their voice being diluted by those of a large number of hereditary peers, they will be a far more significant element of the other place, so their position will be enhanced rather than weakened. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will accept that.

Mr. Fisher: I must have failed to make myself clear. It is not a question of the life peers leaving. They are being left outside our newly democratic constitution. That is why they will be at a disadvantage. The Government made it clear in the White Paper that this House has primacy. The life peers are being left by democracy, condemned to remain in an illegitimate rump. That is why they are at a disadvantage. That is not the contract that they were offered when they were invited to join that House. They were invited to become a member of a complicated and historic House. Many of them believed that they were going in to introduce some restraint in an hereditary system that they did not believe in. We are changing that hereditary system, but we are not giving life peers what we are giving hereditary peers: the right to move into the full sunshine of a democracy. I find it both baffling and unfair that life peers should be condemned to inhabit a democratic hulk.

Mr. Hoon: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern for life peers, but, as I said, they will be much more able to represent themselves once the Bill is passed. That is the underlying reason for the common law disability affecting peers. They have the right to represent themselves in the legislative process, and it is that legislative process that is important. That is why it is recognised that peers should not vote in elections to this part of the legislative process, which would give them two opportunities to influence the content of legislation. That is, I think, a proper response to my hon. Friend's fears.

Mr. Evans: As has been said, several hundred peers who thought that they were going into a body of a certain kind will instead find themselves in a new transitional House. We do not know what stage 2 will involve. What is the major objection to allowing life peers who no longer wish to be part of that upper House, but wish to vote for Members here or, indeed, stand for election here, to do just that?

Mr. Hoon: I have already answered that question. The problem is that, under the common law, peers have the right to represent themselves and are part of the legislative process sitting in the House of Lords. Allowing them to vote for Members of this House would, in effect, give them two opportunities to vote. Opposition Members have made that point themselves.

Mr. Tyrie: That is not the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was making. His point was that life peers should be given the chance to leave the other place if they wanted to do so, because the place that they joined would no longer exist after the Bill was enacted.
The Minister is right in saying that future life peers will know what they are getting in to; but existing life peers will not. Will he deal purely with the position of existing life peers? Why should they not be able to choose whether to remain in the other place, or leave and have the opportunity to vote and sit in this place?

Mr. Hoon: I am not aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is expressing on behalf of life peers. I have received no representations along those lines; nor, I suspect, has the hon. Gentleman. I do not see that the choice exercised by those who have decided to accept a life peerage will be affected in any way.

Mr. Winnick: Are we to believe that those who accepted life peerages did so on the basis that they would go to the other place simply because it was made up of life peers and hereditary peers? Surely the thought never entered their heads. They accepted life peerages because they considered it an honour, and wanted to contribute accordingly. Whether the House contained hereditary peers was irrelevant.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes the point much more succinctly than I have.
I sometimes think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) must have become the hon. Member for Bizarre Constitutional Anomalies. He has clearly built that phrase into his word processor. He referred to the European convention on human rights, but did not seem to accept that his criticism of what we are doing would fall foul of case law against retrospection under that convention. It is clearly stated on the front of the Bill that it is compatible with the convention, an endorsement that is now necessary in the case of all legislation. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such a point.

Mr. Grieve: I have never sought a retrospective element. I was concerned about the enactment of the Bill before the end of this Parliament, rather than at the end of the Session. There was no question of my seeking some retrospective application.

Mr. Hoon: The way in which I understood the hon. Gentleman—it is still the way in which I understand him—was that to correct the problem, it would be necessary to legislate retrospectively.

Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would not have had to become the hon. Member for Bizarre Constitutional Anomalies if the Government had not created so many?

5 pm

Mr. Hoon: So far, I have not identified any. If I can be blunt, a simple and straightforward Bill is being used to try to find difficulties that do not exist. I accept that, in a Committee, it is perfectly proper for Opposition Members to seek to find difficulties. So far, they have been unsuccessful.

Dr. Liam Fox: Does the Minister accept that a point of principle has been raised by my hon. Friend


the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)? Hereditary peers were unable to vote at the last election because they were guaranteed a seat in this Parliament. Had they known that their right to remain in Parliament would be removed, they would have been in a different position. The fact that they are losing their rights halfway through a Parliament creates the anomaly. The way to get around that is not through any form of retrospection, but simply by not applying the measure until the end of the Parliament.

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that—that would simply delay the operation of the Bill, which we hope the House will accept. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would be no more fair than the situation arising when someone attains the age of 18 after a general election. They do not have the opportunity of voting for the period between becoming 18 and any subsequent election, yet there is no suggestion from the Opposition that that is in any way unfair. The position for hereditary peers will be precisely the same. They will lose the right to represent themselves in the other place if the Bill becomes law. By virtue of clause 2, they will then have the opportunity of voting and standing for elections for this place.
If a gap or difficulty is created by the need to prepare electoral registers well in advance of any general election, that can be remedied by the operation of clause 4(3). That is a simple, straightforward and—above all—fair package. Opposition Members—particularly those on the Front Bench—have to say whether they would prefer another solution to clause 2, which is a fair way of dealing with hereditary peers.

Dr. Fox: I am impressed by the elegant way in which the Minister comes up with some of his arguments, but the argument about someone attaining the age of 18 is not the same. In one case, we are increasing the franchise by allowing those who knew that they were to take part eventually to do so and, in the other, we are disfranchising those who did not know that they were to be disfranchised.

Mr. Hoon: They should have read the Labour party manifesto a little more carefully.

Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has, in part, picked up on the point that I wished to make. The parallel of the 18-year-old is not valid. However, the issue is not whether hereditary peers read the Labour manifesto—that is irrelevant. The point is that a class of people over the age of 18 are entitled to vote for election to this House. The only ones who are deprived of that right—apart from those disqualified because they are lunatics or felons—cannot vote because they are entitled to represent themselves during the currency of the Parliament.
It is halfway through the Parliament—and not at its end—that the Government are intending to deprive those people of their power to represent themselves without giving them the power to vote on what happens in this Parliament between the time that they are disqualified and its end. I believe, therefore, that they should be removed and disqualified at the end of the Parliament.

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman made precisely the same point earlier, and I will not weary the Committee by responding precisely as I did then.
I think that I have dealt with all the points that were raised. I considered carefully the points made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He is always anxious that I should deal in detail with his observations. I think that I have done so. I will not speculate on how precisely clause 4(3) will operate. That is why we have made it permissive. We may not need to use it, and that would be the best solution.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

REPEALS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: In the cause of trying better to understand the clause, I have had a look at the Peerage Act 1963, to establish what is affected by the schedule to which the clause refers. It would help me if the Minister were briefly to explain what the clause does and why.
I am especially interested in the reference to section 2 of the Peerage Act 1963, which may touch on the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). That section is entitled
Disclaimer by members of the House of Commons and parliamentary candidates",
and covers the eventualities in which there is an overlap between membership of the two Houses.
That affects the matter of timing. Unless I am misreading the situation, which is entirely possible, because the Act is rather dense—no, nobody has risen to the bait—the provision may not be as relevant as it might be to my right hon. and learned Friend and to any other Member of Parliament who is in the fortunate position of being the possible inheritor of an hereditary title.
The schedule deletes altogether sections 4 to 6 of the Peerage Act 1963, which refer to
Parliamentary qualifications of Scottish Peers, Irish Peers and Peeresses in their own right".
For example, section 4 says:
The holder of a peerage in the peerage of Scotland shall have the same right to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords, and to sit and vote in that House, as the holder of a peerage in the peerage of the United Kingdom; and the enactments relating to the election of Scottish representative peers shall cease to have effect.
That is to be repealed. What lies behind that? I may be the only one who has not understood, and if so I offer the Committee my apologies, but if others have shared my difficulty in grasping the relevance and impact of the schedule, it would be helpful for the Minister to give us some background.

Mr. Swayne: I, too, have had the benefit of reading the Peerage Act 1963. I was able to follow the logic of the exclusions in the schedule, which flow from clause 2 of the Bill, save in one respect. It may show only my ignorance, but the
ignorance of a member of the


Committee is a proper concern for the Minister. My query relates to the extent of the repeal as it affects section 2, which states:
Where a peerage is disclaimed under this Act, no other hereditary peerage shall be conferred upon the person by whom it is disclaimed, and no writ in acceleration shall be issued in respect of that peerage to the person entitled thereto on his death".
That provision will be repealed, and I hope that the Minister will explain why.

Mr. Forth: I noticed that point as well, but I did not mention it because I did not want to make my comments any longer than was necessary. However, I wondered whether that was the very mechanism that had benefited Lord Cranborne and whether there was a sinister element in its repeal, given recent events.

Mr. Swayne: I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up any doubt on that score.

Mr. Edward Garner: I wish to ask the Minister a more fundamental question than the subtle ones that have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Why does any part of the Peerage Act 1963 need to be repealed in the light of the Bill? If it does nothing else, the Bill will prevent holders of hereditary peerages from sitting, voting and speaking in the other place. It will specifically allow holders of hereditary peerages to vote in elections for this House and to become Members of Parliament. Someone who today sits in the other place could become a Member of this House and use, if they wanted to, their hereditary title. The Speaker would call—

Mr. Letwin: Lord Speaker.

Mr. Garnier: Yes, we could even have a Lord Speaker or Lady Speaker. That aside, the whole purpose of the Bill is to disable hereditary peers from taking part in the legislation of the other place and to enable them to take part in the legislation in this House. The Peerage Act 1963, in the long title, authorises
the disclaimer for life of certain hereditary peerages".
The whole Act will become otiose, because by implication, it will be entirely repealed by the Bill. I hope that the Minister can deal with that point.
The purpose of the Peerage Act 1963 was to allow successors to hereditary peerages—we remember the case of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), or Lord Stansgate as he was for a short time—and, presumably, unwilling peers to renounce their hereditary titles, which after all were awarded to their forebears and not to them, so that they could stand for election to this House.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is it true that the Peerage Act 1963 would become otiose? What would happen if one of the Weatherill peers died towards the end of this Parliament? Would he be succeeded by his eldest son or would the other peers elect a new peer?

Mr. Garnier: I do not know, but I would guess that the son of a Weatherill peer, as my hon. Friend called them,

would be entitled to inherit the honour and the name, and be entitled to call himself the second or third Lord Leigh of Gainsborough, or whatever it might be. He would not, as a consequence of his father's death, be able to step into his shoes as an elected hereditary peer. I do not know whether the Government have yet invented a system for by-elections within that class of hereditary peers who will be members of the new House of Lords.

Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be extraordinary if the Government had invented any such mechanism, because they deny all knowledge of the proposal to which he refers?

Mr. Garnier: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but for the very reason that the Government deny it, I would not find it in the least bit extraordinary. I have dealt, in interrogatory form, with the first part of the long title of the Peerage Act 1963. It continues:
to include among the peers qualified to sit in the House of Lords all peers in the peerages of Scotland and peeresses in their own right in the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom".
By definition, the only people who are included in that class of peer are hereditary peers. Since 1963, no new life peerages that would fall within that description have been created.

Mr. Hogg: Hereditary peerages.

Mr. Garnier: Hereditary peers have been created, but there have been no new hereditary peers in the peerage of Scotland or any new creations of peeresses in their own right in the peerages of Scotland, England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, although life peeresses have been created, of course. I suggest that there are no peers in that class who would not already be caught by the provisions of the Bill and expelled from the other place.
The long title continues:
to remove certain disqualifications of peers in the peerage of Ireland in relation to the House of Commons and elections thereto; and for purposes connected with the flatters aforesaid.
Unless the Minister can provide me with some ingenious examples of peers of Ireland whose rights will be unaffected by the Bill, I suggest that clause 3 and the schedule are unnecessary.

Mr. Swayne: I apologise to the Minister. When I asked my question a few moments ago, I read out correctly the part of the Peerage Act 1963 that confused me, but I misidentified it. It is section 3(2) that contains the exclusion that I wish to be explained.

Mr. Hoon: Clause 3 is a simple, straightforward measure and part of a determined campaign by the Government to keep the statute book as simple and straightforward as possible. It introduces a schedule to the Bill. As a result of clauses 1 and 2, certain provisions of the Peerage Act 1963 will no longer be required—for example, those which require a peer to disclaim a peerage before he or she may stand for membership of the House of Commons, a point that the hon. and learned Member


for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) reached eventually—and the schedule repeals those provisions. It is as simple and straightforward as that.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister tell us which bits of the 1963 Act are required?

Mr. Hoon: As ever, the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes straight to the point. Certain of its provisions are required, and I shall write to him in due course about them.

Mr. Garnier: When the Minister writes to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), will he not only identify which parts of the 1963 Act are required, but provide a full explanation of why they are required?

Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly do that.

Mr. Hogg: Would the Minister put a copy of his letter in the Library of the House of Commons?

Mr. Hoon: Of course.

Mr. Swayne: I suspect that the Minister's explanation was written before the debate because he has made no attempt to address my specific question. I understand entirely that the exclusions follow from clause 2, except in respect of the subsection to which I drew attention. May I also expect a letter from the Minister?

Mr. Hoon: Yes.

Mr. Leigh: My intervention was brushed aside by the Minister and the Leader of the House. May I offer the Committee a scenario that could happen to one hon. Member of this House. Let us say that an hon. Member has a father who is an hereditary peer—I can think of at least one. Let us say that the father is elected to be a Weatherill peer. Let us say that the father subsequently dies before the end of this Parliament. At present, the situation is quite clear. If one's father is an hereditary peer and one is a Member of the House of Commons, one's office is immediately closed by the Serjeant at Arms and one is not allowed to sit in this Chamber. One then makes one's choice.
Under the new arrangements, if an hon. Member has a father who is an hereditary peer, but not a Weatherill peer, there will be no problem. He will go on sitting in this House. However, what would happen if his father was a Weatherill peer? Would the hon. Member be allowed to make his choice between sitting here and being allowed to stand later for election as a Weatherill peer? If so, we should be giving that person—as I have said, I can think of at least one example of an hon. Member to whom this situation might apply—an entirely unfair position. He would be able to sit in this House, or to stand as a Weatherill peer.

Mr. Forth: I am beginning to regret the brevity of my remarks. I had skipped over this matter. I pointed out that the deletion of section 2 of the Peerage Act 1963 took out

the bit that referred to disclaimers by Members of the House of Commons and parliamentary candidates. My hon. Friend has picked up a point with which I failed to deal adequately. The deletion of the whole section, in a way that the Minister has not yet been able properly to explain, would leave us in a serious position.

Mr. Leigh: That is part of the difficulty that we face. We know perfectly well that there will be a class of Weatherill peers, but the Government refuse to acknowledge that those peers will exist. They claim that it is a hypothetical situation. My point is perfectly justifiable. The Minister has argued that one cannot have one's cake and eat it, and that one cannot be a Member of the other House and be allowed to stand for this place. Why, then, should someone whose father happens to be an hereditary Weatherill peer be placed in the uniquely advantageous position of being able to choose, in his own time, whether to stay here or go to the other place?

Mr. Hoon: I shall repeat my earlier mantra on whether or not there are to be amendments to deal with the arrangements suggested by Lord Cranborne. It may or may not occur, and we may or may not have the kind of debate that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to.
The hon. Gentleman has at least saved the taxpayer the cost of a first-class stamp, however, as I can now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I was right in my earlier comments.

Mr. Garnier: He is sometimes right.

Mr. Hoon: Every so often, that is so.
Clause 3 and the schedule are a tidying-up measure. They reduce the size of the statute book. The hon. Member for New Forest, West was concerned about writs in acceleration. Our repeal ensures, for the avoidance of doubt, the removal of writs in acceleration, which might otherwise have been available had the provision been left in. This is a tidying provision arising from the 1963 Act, which dealt, as it had to, with writs in acceleration. Those writs will no longer be possible, because they apply only to hereditary peers, who will not have the right to sit. This is simply a means of ensuring that a piece of legislation that is no longer necessary is removed from the statute book, which I am sure the hon. Member for New Forest, West would welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISION

Mr. Letwin: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'Session of'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 6, in page 1, leave out lines 15 and 16.
New clause 1—Duration of Act (No. 1) —
'.—This Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the Parliament in which it is passed.'.

New clause 2—Duration of Act (No. 2)—
'( ) This Act shall cease to have effect twenty four months after the publication of the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament announced in Command Paper 4183.'.

New clause 10—Purpose of Act—
'.—The purpose of this Act is to make interim provision for the membership of the House of Lords pending further legislation to substitute for that House a Second Chamber constituted on a different basis.'.

New clause 13—Duration of Act (No. 3) —
'( ) This Act shall cease to have effect and the repeals referred to in section 3 shall be ineffective when the present Parliament is dissolved unless a subsequent act has been passed affecting the composition of the House of Lords.'.

New clause 18—Termination of Act—
'This Act shall cease to have effect at the expiry of the period of three years beginning with its passing.'.

Mr. Letwin: The intended effect of all the amendments and new clauses is the same, although they seek to achieve it by different means. The need for them arises from the shambles and the constitutional outrage being perpetrated by the Government. I do not use those words lightly; this is the least impressive example of major constitutional reform that has been engaged in in the entire English-speaking world. The Government have introduced a Bill—in particular, clause 4—without having the slightest idea of the medium-term and long-term shape of the arrangements that will replace what is being removed. The Government have admitted as much.
Under those extraordinary circumstances, which historians who write the history of this patch of the Government's activities will find even more extraordinary than they seem to us to be, there is a need to try to introduce some semblance of constitutional propriety. The amendments and new clauses seek to provide that semblance. They do so by the simple expedient of asking the Government to alter the Bill so as to produce the effect that they say they wish to produce. It does not seem particularly outrageous to require that of a Government.
The effect in question is to make the interim Chamber an interim Chamber, rather than its being what many Government Members have said they believe it will be—namely, a Chamber that will exist, if not in perpetuity, at least for a period comparable to the 88 years during which the current Chamber has existed under not wholly dissimilar circumstances. We do not want a five-clause Bill that contains not the slightest description of that Chamber—and on which the greatest of efforts have been made to prevent the Committee from debating the constitution of that Chamber—to produce an 88-year Chamber.
Strangely, the Government do not want that either. We seem to agree on that matter. All we ask, therefore, is that the Government should ensure that the replacement Chamber cannot be more than an interim Chamber.
There are two means by which that can be achieved. The Minister will have noticed that we are trying both.

Mr. Hoon: indicated assent.

Mr. Letwin: We are never shy in trying to find means by which the Government may get themselves off the hook. The first means is to delay the effective introduction of the Bill until such time as, by the grace of God and

Lord Wakeham and his colleagues, it will have been possible to define what the long-term Chamber will look like. The other is a sunset clause that would curtail the life of the interim Chamber, thereby presumably forcing some substitute to be constructed.
5.30 pm
It is a dangerous business for anyone, certainly for an Opposition, to speculate on the reasons why Her Majesty's Government, in all their might and with all the wise advice at their disposal, should so far have proved resistant to enacting as modest a measure as the implementation of their own stated desires in their own legislation. In the spirit of constructive opposition, rather than speculation, I offer the Minister four possible explanations of that bizarre reluctance.
The first possibility is that the Government do not believe that they will be able to enact stage 2 because of the serious internal division in the Labour party which has become abundantly apparent from many admirable contributions.
The second possibility is that the Government will not accept measures that would ensure that the Chamber was interim because they do not believe that they can enact stage 2, and do not intend that stage 2 should be enactable, given the royal commission and the Joint Committee, until after the next general election, which they believe they will lose. That view is not shared by most pollsters, but perhaps the Government know something that we do not.
The third possibility is much more generous to the Government's acuity but perhaps less so to their motivation, so I advance it only tentatively. They may not wish to enact stage 2. They may regard the interim Chamber as semi-permanent. That would make abundant sense of their reluctance to accept amendments and is a coherent rational position. Alas, it is not one that they have ever announced. It would be interesting if, in his no doubt admirable summary, the Minister revealed that the Government had changed their mind and that the royal commission was the farce that its terms of reference—though not its membership—suggest it may be intended to be, and that they had not the slightest intention of implementing stage 2 during their tenure of office, before, or, as they may hope, after the next general election.
The fourth possibility, Sir Alan—I am sorry. My goodness me, Mr. Winterton, there has scarcely been a more pleasurable moment than seeing you, alas not yet ennobled, in the Chair. In due course, you may gain a hereditary peerage of first creation and yet be able to sit in this Chamber and in the Chair.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is long overdue that I should be recognised.

Mr. Letwin: The first three possibilities induced little enthusiasm among Ministers. I think the fourth is much the most plausible. I think that the four describe the universe of possibilities. The fourth possibility is, of course, that the Government have not the slightest idea whether the interim Chamber will be long, medium or short term. They hope that it might be short term but do not know whether the royal commission will produce anything acceptable or whether the divisions in the Labour party will prevent proposals from being accepted


even it they are acceptable to the Government. They do not know whether they want a second Chamber in any event. They want to keep us in a sort of animated suspension. That is the interpretation that the British public are most likely to place on the Government's reluctance.
That approach speaks well for the Government in some ways because it suggests that there is no deep and malign intent. However, it brings us back to the point, which the Government can rebut only by accepting some or all of the amendments and new clauses, that this is a constitutional outrage. To proceed with a Bill of this magnitude without, if my speculation is correct, the slightest idea of whether what is being created will last a long or a short time is genuinely irresponsible. When the history books come to be written, the Government will be held to account.

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that his points are made even stronger by what the Prime Minister said but a few days ago at a press conference when explaining his commitment to the retention of duty free—that one should not change existing arrangements unless one can see the nature of what will succeed them? If he was prepared to adopt that position with regard to duty free, why does my hon. Friend suppose that a different policy has been adopted on reform of the other place?

Mr. Letwin: As so often, my right hon. and learned Friend makes a particularly acute point. The Committee can speculate that the reason why the Prime Minister has taken that view in one case but not in the other is that he believes that it is popular to keep duty free and popular with some of his Back Benchers to get rid of hereditary peers. In short, we, and constitutional change, are being governed by the Prime Minister's desire to do what he believes to be politically expedient. That is why I call this a constitutional outrage.

Dr. George Turner: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed out the entirely honourable possibility that we were elected on a manifesto commitment to abolish in a single stage the hereditary right of peers to sit in the other place? Our manifesto spelled that out as a stand-alone commitment. Is it not honourable for the Government to deliver on their manifesto—or is that news to Conservative Members?

Mr. Letwin: It is perfectly honourable. We do not question the legitimacy of the Government's seeking to abolish the hereditary peerage. They were quite properly plain about it in their manifesto. They received an overwhelming endorsement for that—and, alas, for many other policies—from the British public, and they are now enacting it. We do not agree with it, but we do not complain about its propriety. However, it would have been proper for the Government either to work out what they wanted do in the long run or to ensure, as they could by accepting the amendment and new clauses, that the interim Chamber thereby created was genuinely interim, as it was described in the manifesto. We do not question the validity of the Government's getting rid of the hereditaries. We question the creation of an interim Chamber for which the Government have made not the

slightest reasoned case and in whose interim nature no one, including members of the Labour party, can have any confidence. This is a modest proposal. The Minister should relax from his partisan tactics and consider whether he can justify the idea of an interim Chamber being created without its being in some way curtailed and, therefore, interim. That is all that we ask.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister is trying to be popular with his Back Benchers. I am always pleased when that happens. Certainly, such policies win my approval, including the removal of hereditary peers from the Lords. That is an important gain for all Labour Members. It is only right and proper that the longer term should be given more consideration. There are bound to be divisions of opinion. Why should we apologise for that? Some want a fully elected second Chamber, as the Tories now want—or claim to want. Others, like me, have different views. What is wrong with that? The royal commission should consider all those aspects and there should be a proper public debate on its recommendations.

Mr. Letwin: I do not have the slightest argument with the hon. Gentleman. He is right that it is appropriate that those long-term matters should be considered by a royal commission. So they will be, although alas not with the right terms of reference, not over the right period and not starting at the right time. The process could have started 21 months ago. The commission would have had 30 months to think about the matter. It did not start because the Leader of the House decided not to set it up. That is not our problem, although it will be the problem of the whole country, but we do not have the slightest disagreement with the hon. Gentleman that these things should be considered. Nor do the amendments and new clauses seek to prevent that occurring.
We merely seek to ensure that at the end of the royal commission's deliberations, there is a long-term Chamber in place or, failing that, that the Act does not come into force. All that we are asking is that the passage of the Act be made contingent on the Government doing what they say they want to do.

Mr. Swayne: If I understood correctly the intervention of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), he suggested that simply abolishing the rights of hereditary peers was all that was required to meet the manifesto commitment, and that the question of an interim Chamber did not arise. That is a perfectly proper and honourable position to take, but it is inconsistent with the position that the Government have taken. The Government maintain the fiction that they are creating an interim Chamber. Therefore, there is a gulf between the Government and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend, as so often, moves us to the centre of the debate. As we go through the amendments and subsequent amendments before the Committee, we shall discuss the serious question of how the interim Chamber is to work. It is a question that, alas, the Government have not addressed. In not doing so, the Government have failed to resolve a number of serious practical questions about how the constitution will operate in the interim. The new clauses and amendments, alas, cannot in themselves resolve that problem.
At a later stage, owing to the admirable selection of amendments and new clauses, we shall have the opportunity to discuss those matters. I shall not trespass on your good will by describing them now, Mr. Winterton. These new clauses and amendments seek to ensure that there is sufficient pressure, or else a sufficient pressure valve, to ensure that there is not an interim Chamber without a proper constitution for ever. That is the modest intent.
The reason why we are so urgently concerned with that matter is that when the Government decided to get rid of the hereditary peers, they did not consider—this was the precise point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—whether the Chamber that they thereby created would be capable of doing the job for longer than a very short period indeed.
There are severe problems with a Chamber that is the result solely of patronage, which is inevitably what the interim Chamber will be at first. From a sedentary position, the Leader of the House is quietly making remarks about appointments, commissions and Cross Benchers, but—

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I would hate to mislead the hon. Gentleman. I was making the point that the peers are all there as a result of patronage.

Mr. Letwin: Yes. That was my point. They will all be there as a result of patronage.

Mrs. Beckett: No; they are now.

Mr. Letwin: Indeed, but they will all be there as the result of the direct patronage of recent Prime Ministers. A larger proportion of them will be there as a result of the patronage of the present Prime Minister. But there will be rather few of them. There will be many fewer working peers than now, and they will have to do rather a lot. It is by no means clear to us how they will carry out their tasks. I do not believe that it is clear to the Government either. We shall discuss some of the details in subsequent amendments, but it is clear that if the onus of those tasks is placed on a small number of individuals with their relatively slight attendance for a long period, the problem will be aggravated to the point at which the process of legislation will be impeded.
It is not in the Government's interest, let alone in the interests of parliamentary democracy, that the interim House should endure, with its admittedly temporary nature—this is the Government's admitted position—in the sense that it has not been constructed carefully or after due reflection but has simply had part of the previous Chamber removed. It will be a kind of teeth extracted House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Wisdom teeth extracted.

Mr. Letwin: The Government have an interest in ensuring that such a House with, as my hon. Friend says, its wisdom teeth removed, is not a long-term proposition.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is the hon. Gentleman not making the point that if the transitional House cannot

carry out its functions because its Members are too lazy to attend, any idea that it could become the long-term solution is fanciful?

Mr. Grieve: Would that it were.

Mr. Letwin: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend says exactly what I should have liked to say. I share entirely in the hon. Gentleman's ambition. The House proposed in the Bill will not be capable of doing its job. It is not in the Government's interests, our interests or the interests of Parliament that it should continue for long. We are in agreement. The new clauses and amendments seek merely to ensure that there is a logical consequence—namely, that it is does not do its job at all, under one arrangement, or, if the Government do not accept that, that it does not do its job for longer than a couple of years.
If the Minister replies that two years is not quite long enough, we are reasonable men and women and we shall be happy to concede a longer period. We are trying to be practical. We have a common interest in getting it right. I urge the Minister to think about it. I know that he will not accept the amendments and new clauses tonight. Alas, that is the way in which this place works. We are discussing a serious matter. I hope that the Minister will go back and reflect on whether it would not be in the Government's interests to do something along the lines that we suggest. It would restore the faith of people who elected the Government and convince them that they are a serious Government engaged in serious constitutional change, and that when they say they are creating an interim Chamber, they will, indeed, ensure that it is interim.

Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman possibly does not recognise that many Labour Members do not think that the present House of Lords is doing a good job. I know many Labour Members who believe that simply removing the hereditary peers will make the interim Chamber a better place that is able to do a better job than the existing House. That does not mean that we do not want a second change, but I am convinced that Conservative Members and many others in this country would address the real issue in a different fashion if they were discussing both questions together.

Mr. Letwin: I am genuinely surprised by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It may be a sincere reflection of his lack of agreement with me about what goes on in the House of Lords. Or perhaps he has spent so much time attending debates in this House that he has not spent much time watching their lordships at work. Anyone who had the privilege to read or hear the recent debate on the White Paper in the House of Lords will know that the quality of debates in that House is very high. It is a House capable of performing its tasks. The interim Chamber will contain many of the same distinguished figures, but it will have about half the number of working peers. The burdens placed on working peers today are immense. The burdens placed on them in the interim House will be twice as great. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered what the workings of this country's constitution will be like if there is no limit to that increased burden.
I think that it was on Second Reading that the President of the Council made what might, in the long run, be her most famous remark. When challenged, she said that nothing could be worse than the present position; that seems to be the doctrine espoused by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. I fear that, alas, history will prove them wrong. If the interim Chamber continues for long, it might well prove to be even worse. I do not mean that in a political sense, but simply in the sense that the Chamber will not be able to do its business properly.
If the Government deny that proposition, it is open to them to revise their views and to take what I described as route 2—or route 3: they can argue that they do not want a final stage and that they will never have one, but will build a proper House from the interim Chamber; however, that has not been their proposition. Until now, their proposition has been that the interim Chamber will be merely interim. They admit that it will not do its work properly and that they do not like it, but nothing could be worse than the current position; so surely the consequence has to be that the Chamber must be temporary. They seem to have accepted that consequence, except in the Bill. We ask only that the Bill should reflect the Government's intention.
No doubt, many hon. Members will say that I have already laboured my point and I do not want to detain the Committee, but I have one final plea to make. Even if the drafting of the amendments and new clauses, or the numbers included in them, do not suit the Government, I ask them not to put a flag in the ground that they cannot remove. On the contrary, I ask them to take the elegant position that there might be something wrong with the drafting—something that they cannot accept—and to come back with some equivalent that serves roughly the same purpose. If that opportunity is missed, a time will come when the Government, as much as the rest of us, live to regret it.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for introducing the group of amendments and new clauses. He has provided an important test of the Government's good faith. We now have the opportunity to find out what they think about the forms that we are considering—for example, what does stage I mean? Is it genuinely an interim stage that will be defined or curtailed in some way, or is it part of a subterfuge whereby stage 1 will be stretched out into the far future?
I have one small question. It is self-evident that some of the new clauses, even those tabled by my hon. Friends, are contradictory. Therefore, will my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset ask you, Mr. Winterton, that they be voted on separately? They will all have different effects: for example, the Committee must decide whether we want the Act to cease
at the end of the Parliament in which it is passed",
as new clause 1 states; or whether we want it to cease after 24 months as specified in new clause 2. Setting aside remarkable coincidences—although they are always possible—those two provisions will have different effects. Part of what we are discussing is the relative merits of different approaches and, for that reason, we shall almost certainly want the opportunity to vote on the new clauses

separately. I leave it to my hon. Friend to make that request to you, Mr. Winterton, as I think that it would need to be he who did so, but I want to put down that marker so that the Committee can do justice to all the issues covered by the group of amendments and new clauses.

Mr. Tyrie: As my right hon. Friend is aware, new clause 18, which I tabled, provides for a period of 36 months. I do not know whether he thinks that that is a sensible time, but the reason I chose it is that if we are to have a year for the work of the royal commission, it is only reasonable and sensible that there should be two years after that during which the necessary legislation can be passed. It is important that those who propose amendments should demonstrate that their proposals will provide sufficient time to enable sensible stage 2 legislation to be introduced.

Mr. Forth: Indeed. I hope that my hon. Friend will expand those remarks and explain more fully why he believes that three years is the option to be preferred.
At this stage, my own view, for what it is worth—I speak tentatively because I have not yet heard the arguments of my hon. Friend—is that his three years is on the long side. My preference would be for the timetable to be as tight as possible, not because I am unduly suspicious of the Government—although I am—but because I believe that at this stage, we are surely able to set out for ourselves a timetable for the work of the royal commission and the deliberations that will follow that is much more demanding even than my hon. Friend's three years. That is my view, but perhaps my hon. Friend wants to persuade the Committee otherwise.
On new clauses 1 and 2, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset wants us to have the option of a deadline that is either the end of this Parliament or 24 months after the publication of the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses. That deadline conceals a longer time scale that might approach the three years advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). We seem to be considering an earliest possible limitation date at the end of this Parliament, followed by either the deadline in new clause 2 or that in new clause 18.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and hope that he will recognise that we tabled this smörgåsbord of possibilities to show the Government that we had no fixed view on the precise time that should be offered. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) offers another possible view, and if my right hon. Friend has a particular preference on that menu—for example, the herrings rather than the mackerel—his view would weigh heavily with all of us.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend does not often make a fishy point, but this might be one of those rare occasions. I am slightly disappointed that he is being so generous to the Government, unless—I will share his generosity for a moment—he believes that the Minister will, at some point in this debate, offer the possibility that one of those reasonable time limitations will be acceptable to the Government. Only in those circumstances will we receive the reassurance that we seek. Why do we seek that reassurance? It is because, so far, neither I nor my hon. Friends have heard anything that would suggest that the


Government are serious in claiming, as they have sometimes done, that stage 1—as it has come to be known—will be only interim and temporary and will be followed by stage 2.
To be reasonable, my hon. Friends are offering rather generous—indeed, overly generous—time limits, so let us take them as workable propositions. I shall not dissent unduly because, although I shall express my preference in a moment, I tabled no amendments and the implication is that I am prepared to accept one of those offered by my hon. Friends. We believe that the Government should be perfectly capable of coming to a proper conclusion about the second Chamber that will emerge within the reasonable time limits that we are offering in the new clauses. The Government envisage that the royal commission will undertake the substantive work of analysis, and there will then be a Joint Committee of both Houses which will enable the parliamentary part of the process to be undertaken. It strikes me that 24 months after the publication of the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses is a more than adequate length of time for this important process.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Twenty four months would take us beyond the date of the next general election. If there were the kind of immobility on the part of the Government that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, the issue would become a matter of contention between the three political parties in their manifestos for the next general election. Under the circumstances, it is not credible to challenge the good faith of the Prime Minister—who has staked his personal authority on this matter—by saying that the Government will not advance proposals for stage 2 if there is consensus by the next general election.

6 Pm

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman invites me to express my utter faith in the Prime Minister, but I am reluctant to do so at this stage.

Mr. Letwin: Did my hon. Friend understand the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) to say in his intervention that he interpreted the Prime Minister as saying that he would bring forward proposals for a fully fledged, long-term second Chamber if there were a consensus? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an extraordinary caveat when there is clearly no such consensus on the Labour Benches?

Mr. Forth: Indeed. Comments such as that—uttered in good faith by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I accept—add to the unease of Opposition Members.

Mr. Grieve: May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? His remarks are made in good faith because they are a precise reproduction of the words of the Prime Minister, with all the accompanying caveats. The hon. Gentleman has accurately reflected the Prime Minister's precise comments on this subject.

Mr. Forth: I will leave it to the hon. Member for Pendle to decide whether he wishes his remarks to be categorised in that way. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a most important point by asking

whether we believe it is proper—indeed, essential—to resolve the matter during this Parliament and to put in place the appropriate mechanisms that would define, and perhaps establish, the new, permanent stage 2 upper House by the next general election.
There is no doubt that we face a serious dilemma: how do we see the relationship developing between the final, reformed upper House and the House of Commons? How will the interplay of forces leading up to the next general election for the House of Commons affect the final definition of the upper House? I share the view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg): I believe that we should have a properly and directly elected upper House. For that reason, it is particularly important to define as soon as possible, the relationship between elections to this place and elections to the upper House. That is why the hon. Gentleman's point is so important.

Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that—unless it is disavowed by his Front Bench—the hon. Gentleman's intervention represents a change in policy? The foreword to the White Paper does not mention consensus. It states:
New Labour in government will … carry out … longer-term reform of the House of Lords as a whole.

Mr. Forth: Indeed—and it would probably be better not to intrude into this area. I am sure that it would be a most unusual experience for the hon. Gentleman if he and his Front Bench were to disagree on this matter.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: rose

Mr. Forth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to elaborate on his views.

Mr. Prentice: I am not entirely sure what the Prime Minister said—and I cannot recall the antecedents of the word "consensus". However, in the context of the royal commission that has been established and will report speedily by the end of the year, I am sure that most reasonable people would accept that, if a consensus emerged between and among the political parties, it would be possible to move towards stage 2 and reach an agreement on that by the end of the Parliament.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has added something very important.

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying that.

Mr. Forth: I shall continue to do so as long as Mr. Winterton allows it. If the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues echo his comments—which he has made on his own behalf or on behalf of his party—that will introduce a new factor. I do not know what "consensus" means. I have always been very suspicious of consensus as a political concept: it is not something with which I have ever felt particularly comfortable. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could discuss over a cup of tea exactly how consensus would emerge, how it would be defined and identified and how far any dissent from that consensus would be accommodated. We could discuss all of those things some other time. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the matter will be resolved in a timely fashion only if


consensus—however that is defined—emerges, my unease is multiplied. I believe that that adds to the argument in favour of the new clauses that we are discussing.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I, too, am troubled by the word "consensus". It is usually achieved in one or two ways—although there may be more. The first involves some kind of deal brokered between party managers and the second, perhaps cleaner and more straightforward, involves a guillotine. Is that the way to achieve consensus?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend and I share the burden of having served in the European Parliament. He and I moved in an environment of consensus for longer than I wished—and perhaps for longer than he wished. We have experience of a political system that is based on consensus—which may be shared by the hon. Member for Pendle, I know not. That perhaps explains the unease with which I greet this new element that has been introduced into the debate—and my hon. Friend obviously shares my unease.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is perfectly right to refer to a time when he and I were Members of another place in Strasbourg, where consensus politics was practised—although I am not sure whether it was the same as the consensus perceived by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Under that consensus politics, the spokesmen of nine or 10 groups would spend 24 hours working out a text to which all could agree, by which time the text would be completely meaningless.

Mr. Forth: That is the danger. We cannot have anything that is meaningless when dealing with such crucial matters. In this group of new clauses, we are considering whether it is our duty to try to ensure, as far as we are able in this Committee and the House of Commons, that the process upon which we have embarked and upon which the Government have taken us will be completed properly in a way that may be anticipated and defined.

Dr. George Turner: I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the speed of the process. However, one of the amendments seeks to involve existing hereditary peers in the debate about what will replace them, and the other two amendments seek to resolve any kind of unforeseen delay by bringing back hereditary peers. That is the effect of the amendments. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why bringing back hereditary peers or allowing them to be involved in the debate addresses his concern?

Mr. Forth: It would concentrate the Government's mind rather wonderfully; that is self-evident.

Mr. Grieve: Labour Members seem to have completely missed the point that nothing would prevent a subsequent Government from returning within the period and saying, if they so wished, that the interim arrangements should remain for eternity. At least the Government would have to come back to the House and state that that was their

policy decision regarding stage 2. Under the present system, they need not say anything at all and the process may meander along for ever.

Mr. Forth: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. We are trying to guard against incompetence or, worse, a deliberate attempt, which could be made only by the Government, to prolong the interim arrangements of stage 1 in a way that would be unacceptable not only to most of my hon. Friends, but to most Labour Members. I hope, therefore, that we shall find consensus on that matter as the debate develops. Who knows?
I do not want to take up undue time.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am almost as near cross as I could be with my right hon. Friend, because in the previous debate, he confessed to his colleagues that he had not sufficiently prepared his work and that he could have said a great deal more. I hope that he will not say that to us all over again.

Mr. Forth: No, I assure my hon. Friend that I have covered most of the ground that I wanted to cover in the way that I intended.
In conclusion, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that although I support the new clauses in his name and the names of other hon. Friends, I hope that he will ensure that at some stage we have the option of making a proper choice between the time scales in his new clauses, after we have had the debate to find out hon. Members' views. Unless the Government give us more assurances about what is in their mind and what commitment they are prepared to make, we should certainly press one of the new clauses so that it can form part of the Bill and we can reassure the people of this country that there is no possibility of this legislature having an interim upper Chamber that is not fully formed, fully supported or fully accountable.

Mr. Winnick: I get the impression that the Conservatives have changed their ploy because it is not popular in the country, to say the least, to be seen to defend the hereditary principle. They have decided that that is out of the question because they know, as we do, that they are not likely to win much public support by doing so. They have therefore changed their tactics. Instead of giving the impression that they will fight tooth and nail for the hereditary principle, all the emphasis is now—as it has been during the Committee proceedings—on whether the second stage should happen sooner or later. That is purely a ploy.

Mr. Letwin: I want to correct an impression. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have made it abundantly clear that we support the hereditary principle in the monarchy, where property is concerned and in other respects. We accept that there is great merit in the proposition that hereditary peers should not have the right to vote in the House of Lords.

Mr. Winnick: Yes, but it is remarkable that not once during their time in office did the Conservatives take any action to undermine the hereditary principle. When the Bill becomes law and perhaps after a few years have elapsed, the Conservatives may want to give the impression to the country that it was they who did their


best to get rid of the hereditary peers. They are quite capable of doing so, and the way in which they have claimed credit for the welfare state should give us cause for suspicion. [Interruption.] I do not know what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is saying from a seated position, but I know that at no stage in the previous Parliament or any other Parliament in which I sat during those ancient times have the Conservatives made any proposals to get rid of the hereditary peers. They might as well admit it because everyone knows that to be the case.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman ought to admit that it is slightly odd for a member of the current Labour party to complain about another party having adopted somebody else's clothes.

Mr. Winnick: I have made it clear that the Conservative party came to the conclusion that there is no point in defending the hereditary principle; there are no votes in doing so, and the party would be discredited at the next general election if it tried to do anything of the kind. All the Conservatives' emphasis is therefore now on stages 1 and 2. The gist of their argument is that it would be highly undesirable to implement only stage 1 and we should know about stage 2 and when that will be implemented.

Angela Smith: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming what appears to be a recent conversion by the Conservatives to not supporting the hereditary principle for the House of Lords? In its 1997 election guide, the Conservative party supported that principle.

Mr. Winnick: Indeed, my hon. Friend makes a valid point, but we know how opportunist the Conservative party is. As Conservative Members would no doubt argue privately—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I remind the Committee that we are debating a specific group of amendments and new clauses, and we should not go wide of that.

Mr. Winnick: I return to the point from which I did not want to depart—the argument about the first and second stages. No one knows what the royal commission will recommend. Indeed, we do not know whether there will be a consensus among its members. However, I have long thought that it would have been arbitrary of the Government to propose a long-term solution for the other place without having an inquiry such as that by the royal commission and, following that, a proper public political debate about what should occur.
I do not for a moment accept that as a result of the elimination of hereditary peers—not literally, I am glad to say—in the first stage, it will be difficult for the other place to function, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) argued from the Dispatch Box. There may be problems, but he greatly exaggerated the possibilities, and serious problems will not occur. I am sure that the other place will be able to carry out its functions without the hereditary peers.

Mr. Letwin: Has the hon. Gentleman read the list that has been compiled of the amount of time that Labour

working peers appointed by this Administration spend in the House of Lords? If he does so, he will discover that one such noble Lord—to avoid embarrassing people who are not present, I shall not read out names—who is a major donor to the Labour party's coffers, has participated in none of the possible votes and has attended the upper House twice. There are many others who have attended for less than 50 per cent. of the possible time. That is in stark contrast to the high attendance of some of those working hereditary peers who will be removed. I do not criticise the noble Lords concerned—they are out there earning an honest crust.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I criticise the hon. Gentleman for something unforgivable—an overlong intervention.

Mr. Winnick: The bulk of work is undoubtedly carried out by life peers.

Mr. Letwin: No.

Mr. Winnick: Yes, it is, and I could quote statistics, but I do not want to prolong the debate. Moreover, there is no doubt that, although their lordships may have to work longer hours, they will be able to carry out their functions properly in the first stage.
I turn now to a serious point that was the subject of a leading article in The Times on Monday—the nature of the second stage. The hon. Member for West Dorset said that there were differences of opinion on the Labour Benches. Yes, there are, and why should there not be? Are we to believe that every Opposition Member now thinks that the second Chamber should be elected?

Sir Patrick Cormack: indicated dissent.

Mr. Winnick: I see that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. There are differences on the Labour Benches, just as there are on the Conservative Benches.
When we get to the second stage, I want—preferably on the basis of consensus, although that may not be possible—a long-term solution to the membership of the upper Chamber. That is why I am pleased that we are not rushing into the second stage and that we are having a royal commission. It is also why I argue strongly that, following the recommendations of the royal commission, we should have a full and proper debate—to some extent, that debate will take place within the parties themselves.
I do not for one moment dispute that I am reluctant to see a fully elected second Chamber—not, I hope, because I have ceased to be a democrat, but because I am concerned about the powers of this House. I want us always to take the leading role, so I am bound to be concerned that a fully elected second Chamber, with all the legitimacy of a directly elected House, could challenge the role and authority of this place. Some hon. Members believe that that would be right, but I do not. All that I am saying is that we need to pause, have a debate and come to a conclusion in due course which will, in the main, meet the wishes of the vast majority of the Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Garnier: Is not the hon. Gentleman a little surprised that in the 18 years of thinking time that the


Labour party had, it did not come to the House much earlier with definite ideas about stage 2? We still do not know what the Government think about stage 2.

Angela Smith: The Conservatives did not do much thinking.

Mr. Winnick: As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) rightly says, the Conservatives did not do much thinking. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is conceding what I said earlier—there was no wish to change the composition of the House of Lords. We have heard from his mouth what we already knew.
If the present Government came up with a blueprint and said that they were going to do away with hereditary membership of the House of Lords and rush into the second stage, I know what the reaction of Conservative Members would be. They would say that it was being imposed arbitrarily, that there had been no royal commission and that it was wrong that such a step should be taken.
In effect, what we are doing is in accordance with what we said during the election. We said that we would remove the hereditary peers and then give proper consideration to the make-up of the second Chamber. What is wrong with that? What is undemocratic about that?

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting soliloquy on the Government's approach to the Bill, but we are dealing with precise amendments. Does he agree that those amendments allow for all the things that he is seeking, but also say simply that there will be a limit after which a decision on the final form of the second Chamber has to be made and brought to the House?

Mr. Winnick: I do not believe that there should be such a strict limit, which is why I oppose the amendments and new clauses. I do not believe that it is desirable. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said in an intervention, if the amendments were carried, there would be a possibility that the hereditary peers could be brought back, which is just about the last thing that Labour Members want.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. However, what he says is not so, and he knows it. The amendments and new clauses would simply concentrate the Government's mind. The Government would have to come to the House for a renewal of the lease of the interim House, and this House would then decide. In a new Parliament, this House may take a very different view from the present one. It is very important that we do not lurch or drift, which is the Government's policy at the moment. Frankly, it is unacceptable with such an important constitutional issue.

Mr. Winnick: If it is not desirable to lurch or drift, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, it is also not desirable to fix a wholly inflexible time limit which has no purpose whatsoever.
When the party battles are over and this measure becomes law—this is not simply a party political point in support of my Front-Bench colleagues, although I support

the line that they are taking—we must, in all seriousness, find a proper balance between the two Houses. If possible, we should reach a consensus between the three main parties about the make-up of the second Chamber. That would be more desirable than introducing legislation for the second stage in a controversial way, as we are doing in respect of hereditary peers. It is necessary to pause, as I have said, and give the royal commission time to make its recommendations.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the time that the royal commission has been given is indecently short?

Mr. Winnick: No, I do not. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman even about that. It is desirable that the royal commission should report as soon as possible. Judging by the arguments deployed by the Conservatives today, I should have thought that that was their point of view, too. Indeed, I believe that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) agrees that the time given to the royal commission is right.
All in all, I believe that we are taking the right step. I have served in the House for a long time, and I am pleased that I sit on the Benches of a Labour Government who are at long last doing what no previous Labour Government have been able to do—remove the undesirable principle whereby people should sit in Parliament for no reason other than their ancestry. Once that is done, it will be possible—if there is good will—to move to the second stage.
There is no reason why the amendments should be accepted. They are wholly inflexible and, as I said, they are simply a ploy by the Conservatives who know that they can no longer defend the hereditary principle.

Mr. Maclennan: If one peers through the miasma of conflicting options and the spun arguments in support of them put to us by the official Opposition, one sees that, notwithstanding their contradictory nature, there may be a grain of concern which we should address in respect of the undesirability of the stage 1 settlement lasting indefinitely. On that there seems to be no division among the hon. Members who have participated in this debate, and no difference of opinion with the Government. Indeed, I venture to say that those who have expressed uncertainty about consensus have witnessed consensus on that point.
It has been clear from the beginning that stage 1 is a phase of reform that is being embraced to improve the upper House, but it is by no means to be the last resting place for the second Chamber. I find it puzzling that the official Opposition keep coming back to the same point. They see no reason to accept the Government's commitment on this issue, but the Government's record on constitutional reform has not been one of delay, dither, uncertainty or unwillingness to take major, remarkable and almost revolutionary steps—quite the reverse. The record of this as yet rather short-lived Government is one of unparalleled readiness to change. Notwithstanding that record, why are the official Opposition hung up about the Government's commitment to consider a plainly democratic, representative and accountable second Chamber?

Mr. Letwin: If the right hon. Gentleman is right about the Government—he may be—does he accept that they ought to agree to some amendments, such as those before us?

Mr. Maclennan: No, I do not, and for the following reason. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman has not told me which of his amendments he would prefer Liberal Democrats to attach themselves to. We listened to him at some length, but at no point did he say, "This is the one on which I propose to make my stand." When dealing with possible constitutional alternatives, a little clarity, certainty and perhaps even priority are needed.
We should not embrace such a mechanistic device when proposing constitutional change. Indeed, it is odd that the Conservative party, which is noted for its interest in promoting stability, should seek to include in legislation something as unstable as any of the amendments that it has tabled, which would create massive uncertainty. Plainly, it would be fantasy to cling to what Parliament is legislating now, in the expectation that we could resurrect what it replaces. The idea that we could get rid of hereditary peers under the Bill and that, somehow, they might rise from their graves with their cerements around them and reinvent themselves as a legislature is extremely fanciful.

Mr. Letwin: Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that all we are trying to do is to trigger a need, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, for the Government to renew the lease. Is that not a reasonable device?

Mr. Maclennan: I like the hon. Gentleman's word device; that I agree with. The proposal is a device—not a constitutional settlement—which we should not accept. It is a device for a debate—

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I am dealing—I hope adequately—with the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The proposal is a device to enable us to focus on the undesirability of our living with an all-appointed upper House. In so far as it is focused on that, it is a perfectly acceptable rhetorical way of proceeding—a sort of university debating society way of proceeding.

Mr. Grieve: Is not the whole of stage 1, on the Government's admission, a device, because, they tell us, it will enable stage 2 to occur by removing the power of hereditary peers to block the consensus that they claim is available?

Mr. Maclennan: There we part company. I do not go along with the view that the Bill in itself is not important. It is of great importance that we should abandon the hereditary principle in our legislature once and for all. I am not happy that there are threats to water it down later, although I understand why the Government are playing with that notion. I do not doubt for one minute, however, that, when the Bill is enacted, it will constitute an important improvement in our legislature. It will not

make a perfect democracy—far from it—but it will have disposed of one of the most indefensible aspects, which undermines the strength of the upper House and its ability as a democratically legitimate Chamber to pronounce on the great affairs of state with authority, in a way that forces the Executive to pay attention, listen, act and respond.
Even if there were to be no further change—that would not be desirable or likely—what is proposed is preferable to what we have at present. I hope that the interim period will not be extended. Therefore, to that extent, I go along with what I take to be the underlying wish of other Opposition Members that the Government announce, as early as possible, proposals for stage 2.

Mr. Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman said that the interim Chamber would be preferable to what we have at present. In that case, he clearly disagrees with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who said at his party conference in September 1995:
in Labour's hands, the House of Lords is no longer to be made democratic—instead, it's to be made the most powerful quango in the land … I would rather rely on the serendipitous opinion of the illegitimate progeny of past kings' mistresses, than the appointees of a modern British Prime Minister".
Why have the Liberals abandoned nearly a century of belief in an elected House to get into bed with the Labour party in the hope—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) wishes to deal with the intervention, I hope that he does so only briefly, because it concerned the merits of the Bill as a whole, not time and commencement, with which the group of amendments deals.

Mr. Maclennan: I certainly would not deal with that intervention at length, apart from saying that the Liberal Democrats are committed to this process because we have confidence that this is a facilitating measure, which will assist the process of reform which has eluded other Governments and parties more disposed to reforming the upper House than the Conservative party has ever been. Such reform defeated the Labour party in the 1960s; I was present during those dreary debates.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not the right hon. Gentleman merely parading a guilt complex, because the most notorious sale of peerages occurred under Lloyd George?

Mr. Maclennan: Lloyd George may have known my father, but I am not prepared to have the sins of my father visited on me.
The Bill is justified, and should set up a Chamber that is more legitimate than what it replaces. Appointees on merit of a range of Prime Ministers over the past three decades are certainly to be preferred to the serendipitous accidents of emergence in the upper House to which the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) referred. Views would have been split if the proposition was that the Bill is the point on which we are all going to stand. We are not. This is the first step of reform.
Yet again, I draw the White Paper to the attention of those who doubt that that is so. Governments cannot propose such changes more clearly than this Government


have. In considering the timing of the successor Chamber, it is important to remember these words in the White Paper, which was published in January:
If there is consensus, the Government will make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament before the next election.
That is where the word "consensus" comes from—the Government themselves. That is the right way in which to approach the matter: to seek consensus and, if there is consensus, to act as quickly as possible.
I cannot guarantee consensus; if there is not a consensus, I hope that the Government will continue the process of reform, so that, at least by the next election, a scheme can be put before the country in the manifestos of the parties committed to it, which the electorate may ratify by their votes. At least then, in the early years of the next Parliament, the anomalies which we are undoubtedly creating will be short-lived.
The choice seems to be straightforward: to have either consensus before the election, in which case a Bill could be introduced in the current Parliament, or for the parties to state clearly at the next election how they will democratise the upper House, with the decision being made by the people, to whom, ultimately, the upper House will, we hope, relate much more closely than the present Chamber can.
Therefore, we should do no more than express our enjoyment and appreciation of the fun that we have had because of Conservative Members, and the hope that their pessimism is misplaced. I believe that it is. For those reasons, we should have no truck with any of the alternatives.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I wish to make a brief contribution, and, in doing so, to pick up on some of the comments by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). He referred to the Bill as a constitutional outrage. As a Member of Parliament, I have received two letters on the Bill. I think that other Labour Members have had a similar response. That does not suggest that the Bill is a constitutional outrage. That is not the reaction of my constituents. By and large, it is not the reaction of people throughout the country.
In previous Parliaments, when constitutional outrages were perpetrated on the British people—such as the abolition of the Greater London council and the introduction of the poll tax—many more letters were sent to constituency Members of Parliament. People rightly understood the difference between what was genuinely a constitutional outrage and what was not.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does not the hon. Gentleman's postbag just illustrate that the issue is not the people's priority?

Mr. Rammell: No. My postbag shows that, having seen the explicit commitment in the Labour party's general election manifesto and seen the Government go ahead with great intent to implement that manifesto, the people are comfortable with what the Government are doing.
The hon. Member for West Dorset referred to the quality of debate in the House of Lords in the recent discussion on the White Paper. I wonder whether he was

referring to the contribution from one of the hereditary peers who argued that democracy was a relatively new invention that should be given time to bed down before the protection for hereditary peers was abolished. Some of the blithe statements from Conservative Members about the supposed quality of debates in the House of Lords and of contributions from hereditary peers need to be, and should be, challenged.
Let me say deliberately and explicitly why the Government and I support two-stage reform and will not agree to the amendments. First, two-stage reform was in our general election manifesto. Most of us, I think, have a quaint notion that parties, once they are in government, should implement the commitments that they explicitly make in their general election manifesto. It is part of a process in which we believe: restoring faith in government and politics.
Secondly, my party, the Government and I have learned the lessons of history.

Mr.Grieve: rose—

Mr. Tyrie: rose

Mr. Rammell: I will continue with the point, and then give way.
Three times this century, there has apparently been a consensus on reform of the House of Lords. The last time we had such a consensus, there was a 5:1 majority in the House of Lords for the abolition of the right of hereditary peers to vote. The first occasion was 88 years ago. However, on every occasion on which that apparent consensus existed, the reform was ultimately blocked by apparently reasonable people, apparently advancing reasonable arguments. Although in principle they supported the abolition of hereditary peers, they could not quite agree on what would replace them and on the nature of a reformed second Chamber.
There is at least a suspicion on my part and that of some of my hon. Friends that some of those people never really wanted reform and used those arguments illegitimately to block it. The net result—we are still seeing it after 88 years—was that the vested interests of hereditary peers and of the Conservative party were maintained.
Were we to agree to the amendments that the Conservative party has tabled, we would allow such disingenuous supporters of reform—if they exist—to say that they want change, but not to say quite how they would agree to it. If we agreed to the amendments, there would be a built-in incentive for filibuster, spurious objections and arcane parliamentary tactics to delay the second-stage debate and legislation. The time limit which is referred to in the amendments would then be introduced, we would come to the end of that period, and reform would not have been agreed.

Mr. Grieve: I realise that the hon. Gentleman will not accept my word for it, but nothing could be further from the truth. The amendments are designed precisely to concentrate the mind. I fail to see—I will be interested to hear him deal with the matter—how they are incompatible with two-stage reform. In fact, they will ensure that the second stage comes about within a certain time.

Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me if I do not have the greatest confidence in the


conviction with which the Conservative party tables the amendments. We have heard much comment about concentrating minds. For the Government, but for the Conservative party in particular, carrying out reform in two stages genuinely concentrates minds, because we will then definitely have to create a reformed second Chamber.

Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from delaying matters, the amendments are about the desperation of the Conservative party to salvage some credibility in the whole debate about democracy? We are confident that we will reach the second stage, but, by tabling the amendments, the Conservatives are trying to claim some credit for making it happen. Will it not happen without their amendments?

Mr. Rammell: Absolutely. That is a fair point. My hon. Friend has rightly described the attempt to create a cloak of decency to hide the fact that, throughout its history and certainly at the last general election, the Conservative party fundamentally supported the hereditary principle: it said so during the last general election campaign.
The other objection to the amendments is one of fundamental principle. If hon. Members believe that the hereditary principle is fundamentally objectionable and that, therefore, the hereditary peerage should go, it is every bit as objectionable that those hereditary peers should be able to participate in the debate to determine who their successors and what the nature of the reformed second Chamber will be. Were we to agree to the amendments and introduce the timetable for the process by which the second stage had to be agreed, those hereditary peers would be able to participate and to influence the legislation on the reformed second Chamber.

Mr. Letwin: I know that the hon. Gentleman is one of most intelligent Members in the House—I mean that genuinely—but either he has not read the amendments or I have misunderstood them. Why does he think that they will change the relationship between existing peers and the debate?

Mr. Rammell: If we accept the Bill as it is drafted, hereditary peers will not be able to participate in the debate on reform of the second Chamber. If we accept one of the amendments, which sets a timetable that could mean a period of as little as 20 months between the passing of the Bill and the ceasing of its effect, it is possible that they will participate in the deliberations on the form and nature of the second Chamber. That would not be a legitimate role for hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
I do not accept the Conservative party's allegation that, either through intent or through lack of proposals, the Government intend such a second Chamber to be a permanent solution. The time scales set out in the White Paper require the royal commission to report by the end of the year. Even if we do not secure reform and the nature of the second Chamber agreed within this Parliament, it is inconceivable that the Labour party could go into the next general election campaign without explicit and specific proposals for further reform of the second Chamber.
That leads me to conclude that, this evening, we are seeing a smokescreen and delaying tactics. We should stick to our guns. We should recognise the delaying and blocking tactics for what they are. We should go ahead with what we set out in the Labour party manifesto at the general election, which was once and for all to do away with the entirely objectionable principle of hereditary peers.

Mr. Tyrie: It is impossible to disagree more than I do with the last point made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). If ever there was a set of amendments and new clauses designed to accelerate rather than delay what happens to the second Chamber, it is this one. The amendments and new clauses are designed to put a time limit on the prevarication and debate that might otherwise indefinitely delay a decision on the second Chamber in the second phase of reform. That is the purpose and intention behind new clause 18, which is quite the opposite of what the hon. Member for Harlow has suggested.
I shall return to the Liberals for a moment. I find it extraordinary that they should oppose these amendments and new clauses when they would inevitably and ineluctably hasten the speed at which we move to what the Liberal party has supported throughout its political life. Only a short time ago, I quoted the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who agrees exactly with that view. His view, as expressed a few years ago, was that to allow the Labour party when in government to go ahead with an appointed House could lead to indefinite delay or the non-realisation of what the Liberals have always stood for, which is an elected second Chamber.
I find it extraordinary—almost beyond explanation—that the Liberals should have suddenly capitulated on this most fundamental area of constitutional reform, which they have espoused for more than half a century. They have completely washed themselves out. In effect, they are saying, "Oh well, we quite enjoy our meetings in Cabinet. We get the odd secret document. In fact, it is all enjoyable." This has been a pathetic exhibition of capitulation and non-opposition.

Mr. Maclennan: There is nothing sudden about this. The agreement that the reform should take place in two stages, both of which would be conducted as speedily as possible, was entered into, quite some time before the last election, by the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party. It was not a frolic of my own this evening. It is something that was ratified by my party at its conference.

Mr. Tyrie: So we now know that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was saying one thing to his party conference and another in secret negotiations with the Labour party. It is an extraordinary and dreadful story of a party selling out its principles for virtually nothing—for a mess of potage.

Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a remarkable precedent in Lord Jenkins's report, in that it seems likely that the Liberal Democrat party thought it had an agreement on that, too?

Mr. Tyrie: The Liberal Democrat party thought that it would get all sorts of marvellous things out of the


Labour party. In fact, the Labour Government have merely implemented the agenda they would have implemented anyway.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is all very interesting, but it has little to do with the commencement and duration of the Act, which is what the amendments and new clauses are about. I know that the hon. Gentleman has tabled new clause 18, to which, no doubt, he wishes to direct his remarks and the attention of the Committee.

Mr. Tyrie: I have heard you make many apposite remarks, Mr. Winterton, in the Chair and elsewhere, and never was one more apposite than that. I shall return quickly to new clause 18 in particular, and to the group of amendments and new clauses in general.
The key question is whether we shall be better off with the interim Chamber or by staying as we are. If we cannot find a stage 2, we should return to where we are now, which is at least with a House that has some experience and tradition of scrutinising the Executive. What sort of House shall we be left with if the Bill is enacted as it stands, without a sunset clause? There are two possibilities. One is that we would have a House more than ever dominated by patronage. The Appointments Commission is nothing more than a fig leaf. It affects only a small proportion of appointments, and when set against the dramatic increase in appointments that the Government have been pushing through, it is scarcely relevant.
The average number of appointments each year over the past 40 years has been 22, yet the Government have been appointing an average of 66. That is packing on a grand scale and is in breach of all precedent. A House of patronage is not an attractive prospect. I have discovered, sitting in my place during these few days in Committee, that a good number of Labour Members have their doubts about patronage, too. An interesting amendment was tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I think that he overdid it a bit. He said that patronage was the bane—I cannot remember his exact words—of British political life, as if there was something uniquely bad in the state of Britain that did not exist in other countries. I have in mind Roman and Belgian patronage—

The Temporary Chairman: Again, this is very interesting, but it is not appropriate to quote what occurred in a previous debate. The issues that arise from the amendments and new clauses are very clear, and I request the hon. Gentleman to direct his remarks to them.

Mr. Tyrie: A more likely prospect is that we would end up with a patronage House, plus a rump of 91 peers. We must ask ourselves whether that or the House of patronage is something that we would be prepared to carry on with indefinitely. The purpose of new clause 18 is to establish whether there should be a provision in the Bill to stop that situation continuing indefinitely.
I believe that the interim House would leave power in the hands of the Executive to an unprecedented degree, such as we have never seen before. The interim House would probably be shorn of any ability to ask the Government to think again.
It is clear that many people in the Labour party do not believe that. They consider that the interim House would be an improvement; that has been suggested in several speeches this evening. I respect and understand that interesting view, which is based on a deep dislike of the hereditary principle. However, I ask Members who have put forward that view to consider the point that the interim House would lack the tradition that the current House has on its side. At least as a body it has a system and a way of working. That has enabled it to get on with its job, which would be severely disrupted by the Bill.
The interim House would be dominated by patronage. Nothing could be worse than a second Chamber completely dominated by the Executive; that would be worse than unicameralism. On that, I seem to have some Labour Members agreeing with me, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway.
It is not at all likely that the interim House would want to move on to stage 2. One of the extraordinary pieces of implicit nonsense in an otherwise excellent speech by the hon. Member for Harlow was the notion that hereditary peers were in themselves a greater obstacle to reform than an interim House would be, and a greater obstacle to stage 2. The hereditary peers know that they have little legitimacy; they have always said that. The hon. Gentleman referred to a debate that took place many decades ago in which they said that. We must ask ourselves what motive the interim House will have to move to stage 2. What possible motive would it have for pressing for that?
The lifers will be clinging on like grim death. As for the 91—if there are to be 91 of Cranborne's troops—they will be sitting on death row, and are hardly likely to be pressing for stage 2. They are likely to comply with the Executive on absolutely everything, except for the one thing that we need from them—sensible stage 2 reform. What is to be done about it? How can the interim House be made tolerable? I shall suggest some of the possibilities, but shall not allow myself, Mr. Winterton, to drift too far—to drift at all—from this group of amendments.
7 pm
In new clauses 17 and 20, which address the problem of patronage, I have already dealt with one possibility for ameliorating the interim House. However, those new clauses are only palliatives and will not tackle the problem more fundamentally. The best approach must be to have something in the Bill that forces the Government to get on with working up proposals for far-reaching reform.
New clause 18, which I tabled, would be a vital guarantee of the Government's promise to deliver stage 2. Occasionally, Ministers mumble that they want to implement a real and substantive stage 2. Recently, they even said that they would like to get on with stage 2 more quickly. If that were the case, what have the Government to fear from new clause 18? What is wrong with this group of amendments? If the Government want to get on with the job quickly, this group of amendments could not possibly do them any harm.
I strongly expect that the Government will oppose this group of amendments because their heart is not in far-reaching reform. They are not interested in it.


[Interruption.] Ministers laugh. What evidence is there to suggest that the Government are interested in far-reaching reform of the House of Lords?
I think that some hon. Members are interested in far-reaching reform. I have been greatly heartened by the number of Labour Back Benchers with whom I have had discussions who believe in an effective second Chamber and want far-reaching reform. However, I have heard from Ministers very little on the matter that is clear cut and not hedged with all sorts of mealy-mouthed words.
I have heard scarcely anything from the Prime Minister to suggest that he wants a balanced constitution; I do not think that I have ever heard him use that phrase. While he is dispensing patronage on such a grand scale, can the Appointments Commission be anything other than a fig leaf for his power in appointing life peers to the interim House? Does the Prime Minister really believe in checks and balances in the constitution? I have never heard him say clearly that he does.
The Prime Minister's actions on the Lords are sweeping aside all precedent. There was a long-standing precedent that there should be all-party consultation—or at least an attempt at it—before any Bill to reform the House of Lords was introduced in this place. On each previous occasion this century when House of Lords reform has been attempted, there has been such consultation, but there was none on this occasion. All-party consultation has not succeeded on every occasion, but at least there was all-party consultation in 1910, 1948 and 1968. On two of those occasions, legislation followed; on the other, as we know, it failed.
As I said, the Prime Minister is also breaking long-standing conventions on the number of peers appointed from his own party: more than 50 per cent. of his appointments have been from his own side. No other Prime Minister has ever broken that convention. As I also mentioned, he is appointing far more peers—in unprecedentedly large cohorts—than any other Prime Minister.
If the Government reject all the proposed sunset clauses, the truth will be out. Ministers will be showing that they do not really want to move to stage 2. They have already dragged their feet and been forced into appointing a royal commission. Initially, they hoped that the commission could kick stage 2 into the long grass; now, pressure has forced them to require it to produce its results more quickly. I think that it is still highly likely that the Prime Minister hopes that the royal commission will rubber-stamp a largely appointed upper House. I also think that many Labour Members, quietly, probably think the same.
The problem for Labour Members is that they have given the game away too often. The Labour manifesto itself says that stage 1 should be an initial and self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform. The Government's White Paper describes stage 1 as a "stand alone" reform. Today, the same belief was expressed by some Labour Members.
We thought that Labour Members definitely believed in at least something—getting rid of the hereditaries. I was astonished to discover that even that belief might be shelved, and that Labour Members might be asked to troop through the Lobby to support the Weatherill amendment.
Lord Weatherill himself has made it clear that he does not want just stage 1 to be an interim House; he has said quite the opposite. In The House Magazine of 11 January, he said:
It's within the bounds of possibility that the Royal Commission may say this"—
the interim House—
has been working well—let's leave it alone. That would preserve continuity … Surely a consummation devoutly to be wished.
That was the view of one of the two tablers of the Weatherill amendment itself: to make the interim Chamber, if the amendment is accepted, into a House of perpetuity, and to forget entirely about stage 2.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The royal commission has to report by the end of this year. It is therefore scarcely credible for that proposition to be advanced.

Mr. Tyrie: Lord Weatherill is in quite a good position to assess what he thinks might be plausible. He made the proposition in public, as a reason why his own amendment should garner support in the House of Lords. I should have thought that that in itself was evidence that it might be a possibility. He is a former Speaker of this place and not politically naive; he is a pretty alert chap. That is what he thought might be the outcome of stage 1—stage 1 dragging on for ever and a day.
Above all, we need a lever to force the Prime Minister to act on his promise to deliver stage 2 reform. The sunset clauses are such a lever. My new clause 18 would provide what the Parliament Act 1911 lacked. The 1911 Act, too, was intended only to be a temporary measure, but it did not have a sunset clause to force through further reform. We are having this debate, 90 years later, precisely because that Act had no means of forcing implementation of the stated intentions of its drafters—more permanent subsequent reform.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since it looks as if the hon. Gentleman will be speaking for the next 90 years, may I ask what is the point of the filibuster?

Mr. Tyrie: I am trying to make a few points, and I am terribly sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks they are not real points. Perhaps, if he reflects on them a little, he will find the odd point that he has not heard before. He has been an hon. Member for a very long time, and was perhaps in the Chamber in the late 1960s for the previous major debate on the House of Lords. Nevertheless, although he has undoubtedly heard many of the points before, I think that some of them are relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made an interesting point, with which I strongly agree, that, if the interim House were to turn out to be desirable as a permanent solution—if Lord Weatherill were to be proved right—it would be open to the Government, even if the sunset amendments were included in the Bill, to introduce another Bill to make the interim House permanent. Therefore, even if the Government accepted this group of amendments, but subsequently decided that they did not want stage 2, they would still be perfectly well protected. I can think of no reason for the Government, if they believe in stage 2, not to support at least one of the amendments in this group or to table a similar amendment of their own.
Having said that, none of the options for improving the interim House that I have outlined today is my preferred option. There are many more sensible ways of reforming the Lords than this bizarre two-stage approach—which, in itself, makes necessary the sunset clauses. The way forward, of course, is to have a democratically elected second Chamber. Let us allow some fresh air—the fresh air of democracy—into the upper House.
I believe that the Prime Minister is only paying lip service to the idea of an elected upper House. In the foreword to the White Paper, he attacks the hereditaries because they have "no democratic legitimacy". I agree that they have no democratic legitimacy, as do the hereditaries themselves. The Lords have said that many times over 80 years.
Does the Prime Minister mean to deliver a democratic solution? Is he prepared to try to balance the constitution? Is he prepared to get his own control freak tendency under control? Is he prepared to allow a second Chamber that works to rise out of the destructive aspects of the Bill? If so, the Government should have nothing to fear from new clause 18. They should have everything to gain from it, because it would allay the fears of many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who want a second Chamber, but fear that the Government intend merely to neuter the upper House and leave reform at that.

Mr. Hurst: I have been looking for a common thread in the amendments and new clauses. It can be summed up as: commencement late; duration short. I am fascinated by some of the amendments and new clauses. One amendment that has not been selected says:
This Act shall not come into force until a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament has studied the operation of the Canadian Senate.
We are not told to what standard that study should be—O-level, A-level, degree or doctorate—so the amendment is imprecise, but I understand why the Conservatives are interested in the workings of the Canadian Senate. There is a fleeting reference to it on page 25 of the White Paper, saying that it was intended
explicitly to provide a conservative counterbalance to a potentially radical Commons.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. The Canadian Senate is a purely appointed body. It has come in for a great deal of criticism because it is toothless as a result.

Mr. Hurst: If that is so, the intention of those who set up the Canadian Senate was not successfully implemented. All upper Houses throughout history in every part of the world have been set up, or allowed to remain, to slow down or thwart the will of democracy. It does not surprise me that one has to adapt to modern times.
Another amendment suggests that we should study the New Zealand Parliament and the abolition of its upper House in 1950. I hope that other hon. Members agree that until New Zealand was foolish enough to change its voting system to something quite grotesque, it was, with a single Chamber, one of the most successful, enlightened and progressive democracies in the world. We claim to

have founded the welfare state, but New Zealand was ahead of us in many particulars. I would welcome a study of the New Zealand system following the abolition of the second Chamber, but that is no reason to delay putting the Bill into effect.
I do not propose to filibuster. I believe that that is primarily an American device, not so known to our constitution. We need to be clear soon about where we are going. Delaying putting the Bill into operation will not achieve that. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Conservatives' belief in democracy for an upper House, as was true of their forebears in 1911, but I doubt how quickly their proposals would go forward. Those in 1910 and 1911 were sincere in their commitment to democracy, but it took two general elections and the threat of the creation of 500 new peers to ensure substantial progress. Very little progress has been made since then. We need to begin the process by passing the Bill into law as soon as we can. Thereafter, consideration of what should replace the House of Lords—if anything—can take its course.

Mr. Leigh: In a night of several long speeches, hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I intend to make a short speech. I should like to put a different perspective on what we have heard.
The Weatherill solution could well prove permanent and I support it. I realise that I am at variance with many hon. Members in that. The system that will emerge will be an orphan, because neither political party is prepared to claim credit for it. The Labour party will not claim credit for the Weatherill solution for the simple reason that it preserves the hereditaries, albeit fewer of them. The Conservative party will not claim credit for the Weatherill solution because it cuts the number of hereditary peers to 91. I believe that it is a good British compromise. It is entirely within our traditions and should be supported by hon. Members on both sides as a fair solution.
It is not good for the House of Lords to have a permanent, inbuilt Conservative majority. That often results in the House failing to oppose bad legislation. The preservation of a limited number of hereditaries in the Weatherill solution is no bad thing, because it provides for the continuance of an independent element. Regardless of whether one supports it in principle, it will probably last because any other solution has so many enemies ranged against it on the old Foot-Powell axis that, as the Government have rightly determined, it would be bound to fall foul of the House of Commons. If the House of Lords was entirely elected, it would be a pale imitation of the House of Commons and would be controlled by the Whips, as this place is. If it was partially elected and partially appointed, the appointees would be there for life and would be independent of the Whips, but would lack the democratic legitimacy of the elected members and would be able to do what they liked. All the possible solutions are logical in their way, but any other will be rejected. The interim solution is justifiable.
Those who support the Weatherill interim solution should have the courage to say so. That is why I support the amendments. The Government are entitled to abolish the hereditary peers because they put the measure in their manifesto and were elected. However, it is wrong for them to abolish the hereditaries without revealing their


long-term ambitions. We all know that they have done that because otherwise it would be impossible to gain any consensus; we all understand that. Surely by the time of the next election the long-term solution should be clear to the British people, be it the Weatherill solution, a partially elected Chamber or a fully elected Chamber. Surely that is all that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is asking for.
I am sure that Labour Members do not like the amendments. Why should they? They have been drafted by Conservatives and could result in the hereditaries being re-created in all their splendour—although it is inconceivable that that would happen. I should like to repeat a point that was made earlier in a non-partisan spirit. We know that the Government are not going to accept the amendments, but there is a serious intent behind them. I accept that the Government are well intentioned and that the Minister is a genuine radical, not just a cynic like me. He does not accept my arguments about the Weatherill solution lasting for ever. I accept that he wants a non-Weatherill, non-hereditary solution. He wants to do something.
I merely plead with the Minister to make it clear to the British people when he decides the final shape of the Bill—or when it becomes an Act—that the matter will be finally determined in this Parliament. If he does that, when people vote in the next general election—or, hopefully, before that—the new constitutional set-up will be clear. That is all I ask.

Mr. Grieve: I intend to be brief, because I have already raised some of the matters that I would have raised in my speech in interventions.
I simply do not understand the suggestion by Labour Members that the amendments were designed to thwart the Government's entirely legitimate aim of getting rid of hereditary peers, which is their stage 1 ambition. They do no such thing. They enable the Government to achieve their aim: indeed, the point has been entirely and properly conceded by the mere fact of the Bill's having been given a Second Reading.
I might add that it is true to the Conservative tradition that, having been reluctant to consider alterations to the form of the Upper House—because we have found it difficult to see how they could be implemented—we should be the most desirous of radical changes in the way in which the second Chamber operates, now that the logjam has been shifted and the principle of change has been established. I certainly am. I have tried to adopt a consistent approach to the Bill, and I intend to continue to do so.
I think it was the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) who told us that we should be in no doubt about the Government's willingness to proceed to stage 2. There it was, in black and white, in the White Paper; it could be accepted without any difficulty. The history of the past 12 months, however, suggests that the Government have experienced appalling difficulties in wrestling with stage 2. I do not wish to be cynical about the Government's difficulties, because I think that they are genuine; but we have had to extract bit by bit even the concessions that made the completion of stage 1 possible. Without that, there would have been no royal commission a year ago. Certainly there was no talk of it, and there was no real suggestion that

stage 2 would be taken further. The Weatherill amendments—which are at least a concession to the upper House, in that they imply that stage 2 will come—have also had to be extracted, in the teeth of massive opposition, and threats of opposition, to the Bill.
I want stage 2 to happen, and given the fashion in which the House of Commons operates, there is no better way of ensuring that it happens than guaranteeing that the matter returns to the House within a set time. Sleeping dogs are usually allowed to lie, and nothing is easier for a Government than to say, "We have too much other legislation before us. The agenda is too full. We have no time in which to consider the matter, so we will put it off."
A finite time limit is needed. After all, if such a limit is not observed, it will be possible to return to the status quo ante. I appreciate that that is anathema to most Labour Members, and I would not like it to happen; a time limit would guarantee that we applied our minds to the issue within that period. Once we have done so, if the interim Chamber has indeed commanded the most widespread support, we shall be able to ratify it. Heaven knows, that would involve a only one-line piece of legislation: it would not exactly interfere with a Government's future timetable. If that does not happen, we shall be forced to settle down and work out how the second Chamber should operate.
It is clear that there are major divisions of view, which cross party lines. There are also legitimate issues for discussion. I am the first to admit—although I strongly favour an elected second Chamber, which should not be elected by Government and prime ministerial patronage; that is the key issue—that many questions must be dealt with. For instance, there is the question of keeping a range of expertise in the upper Chamber. I should like to discuss all those matters: they need to be discussed.
If the amendment is not accepted, we shall be presented with a blank cheque allowing nothing at all to happen. Whatever view is held by Labour Members—whether they favour retaining the interim arrangements, opting for a radical second Chamber or abolishing the upper House entirely—by voting for the amendment and those grouped with it they will guarantee that the matter will return to the House for further consideration. Without the amendment, there will be no such guarantee. That is why I feel so strongly that it should be accepted.

Mr. Swayne: I had intended to detain the Committee for some time, but I now see little point in doing so. The speech that has silenced me is that of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). He pierced the heart of the issue when he pointed out that Labour Members simply did not trust us.
The amendment, and those grouped with it, were tabled largely because we are not persuaded of the Government's good intentions in respect of pursuing the agenda for phase two. That is certainly true of me. The amendments are, as it were, an engine to ensure that the matter is dealt with. The hon. Member for Harlow said that, from his party's perspective, the amendments are seen as proof of our own lack of good intent to pursue phase 2, and as merely providing a means whereby the status quo ante can be returned to after a period of filibustering, havering and scuppering of reform.
Following that impasse, I am not sure what the way forward is. I can only say that I believe the amendments to be important. They are particularly important in respect


of the historical perspective. For 80 years, this issue has been bedevilled by an inability to concentrate the mind of the Executive on the question of reform. The amendments provide the necessary perspective—with the exception of new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I hope that he will explain the new clause to us, because it mystifies me.
It seems to me that new clause 10 falls into precisely the same error as the Parliament Act 1911, in that it makes a statement of intent. The 1911 Act made a statement of intent, but it has not been implemented in 80 years. I fear that any kind of statement of intent would be no more effective in this Bill than it was in that Act. The other amendments and new clauses, however, give us a range of options for providing the focus that is proper to the issue. It is undoubtedly the case that the focus of Ministers will change—as, indeed, it has already changed—but we are told that this is a matter of urgency. It was not a matter of urgency 20 months ago; it was not a matter of urgency in the first Session of this Parliament.
Other things will happen. The Government may lose their extraordinary run of good luck, and, like most Governments before them, become captive to events. They may have to react to events, and have to dominate their agenda very differently. In that case, this issue will be lost sight of; and that is why the amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Garnier: I shall be brief, because all the Conservative speeches have been excellent. I particularly commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).
The dangers of clauses 4(1) and (2) are highlighted—as are the advantages of the amendments—by what follows in subsequent subsections. There we see the Government giving a Secretary of State powers to make an order for
such transitional provision about the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages to vote at elections to the House of Commons or the European Parliament as he considers appropriate.
Clause 4(4) goes further, allowing the Secretary of State to modify—another word for amend—
the effect of any enactment or any provision made under an enactment.
If we are to allow this Government or the Secretary of State to have those powers to tinker with the constitution in a way that he sees fit or appropriate, the sooner we get the Bill time-limited, the better. Whether it is a 24-month, a 12-month or a 36-month limit—or a sunset clause, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)—the sooner we get such a clause bolted on to the Bill, the better. If there is a constitutional outrage, it is to be found in the Secretary of State being given powers to tinker with the constitution by statutory instrument. I find that obscene. For that reason alone, I hope that my hon. Friends will pursue these amendments.

Dr. Fox: One of the difficulties of the amendments has been that this is the precursor of a precursor Bill. It is a

precursor because we are getting only an interim House, because we are not moving to stage 2 and because we know that the Government will alter the content of the Bill in the other place. Indeed, the Leader of the House has stated that that is the Government's intention.
Several points were made on clause 2 this afternoon concerning anomalies in the Bill, caused by the way in which it will be enacted. The Bill will be brought in halfway through the Parliament, and the question of the disfranchising of hereditary peers was mentioned. The amendments seek to avoid that by bringing the Bill into effect at a time different from the one the Government want. Labour Members have said that this will tie the hands of the Government. Any Government wanting to come forward with a real stage 2 proposal would be glad to have their hands tied in that way.
The amendments do not thwart, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said—augment the position of anyone who wants stage 2 reform. That is all we seek. We have been consistent in saying that we did not want stage 1 reform without knowing what stage 2 was to be. The amendments propose to put into the Bill something that guarantees that we will not move forward until we know the final position. Amendment No. 5 proposes to bring the Bill into effect at the next general election, and we intend to divide the House on it.
Our intention is to avoid having the interim, unwanted, halfway and unnecessary House. It will be an interim House—but between what and what? We currently have an interim House—it has been there for 88 years. By that reckoning, our great-great-grandchildren will be back here in 2087 to discuss what should happen to the Chamber that the Bill proposes.
The Bill proposes that the royal commission and the Joint Committee should agree on a proper stage 2 proposal without considering something that nobody wants and which does not do what is required. That is one of the points that we have made. The interim Chamber does not represent an improvement on the government we have. Any substantial change in our constitution should represent an improvement on the way in which we are governed.
The proposal will not bring the Executive better to account than at present. It is not the House of Commons that is too powerful, but the Executive. When the House of Commons fails to do its job in bringing the Executive to account in a proper bicameral structure, we need a second Chamber which is willing to do that and which has that authority.
That is why I found the speech of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) rather strange. The Opposition are trying to strengthen the upper House to control the Executive—not the reverse. The Government's proposals will weaken the upper House's ability to call the Government to account. That cannot be right. We are accused of being suspicious. Why? We genuinely doubt the Government's motives, and their willingness to move to the second stage. We believe that the first stage will be what we get in terms of reform. We want to know the end product—that is perfectly rational.
We believe that the Government's intention is to kick the matter into the long grass, and we have perfectly reasonable grounds for that suspicion. We have had to drag the White Paper and the royal commission out of the Government—neither was offered at the outset. It was


only when the Government were faced with huge opposition—not least in the other place—that they were willing to grant these reforms. Why should we not doubt that they genuinely want reforms that will create a different locus of authority in this Parliament—something that might bring the Executive to heel?
We all know the real debate—we have been having it for 88 years. Should we have a second Chamber, as the hon. Member for Braintree legitimately asked? If so, should it have more or less power? If more power, what should these powers be? If it is more powerful, how should it be composed? Should it be appointed, elected, or a mixture of the two? We all know the arguments well enough to be able to move straight to the second stage without an interim Chamber that no one really wants, and which is composed in a way that is entirely opposed to the Government's manifesto. It will be a hotch-potch, cooked up to suit Labour Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) asked perhaps the most legitimate point of all. He said that the Government are asking us to accept a change to our system of government without telling us what that change will be. That is the most unacceptable thing of all. They say that they want stage 2—this is their chance to prove it. By accepting the amendments—and by tying their own hands—they will make it clear.
Any alternative proposed by the Minister will reinforce our suspicions that we will never see stage 2, and that the Government's intention is to provide a pliant halfway House full of yes-men with no power to stop the Government doing what they want. With the House of Commons already under the control of the Whips, there will be little to bring the Executive to account. That cannot be a healthy democratic structure.
These amendments give the Government a chance to propose a properly structured stage 2 reform. They will have the support of the Opposition should they choose to do that, and we will co-operate fully in the royal commission. We wish to see stage 2 completed. What we find unacceptable is that the Government—for party political reasons and reasons of convenience—should try to gerrymander our constitution.

Mr. Hoon: We have debated the two amendments and five new clauses together because they all deal, in one way or another, with the question of whether reform should proceed in one stage or in two, or whether attempts should be made to force the process into one stage or to provide a legal commitment to the second stage. Having heard two speeches from Conservative Front Benchers, we do not know which they would prefer.
We have had a great deal of sound and fury, particularly from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who talked about constitutional outages. He referred to an 88-year Chamber—harking back, I assume, to the 1911 Act. Had he analysed the constitutional history of the other place properly, he would have referred to 1958, not 1911. The 1911 proposal did not deal directly with the composition of the other place. The 1958 one did.
On Second Reading, I referred to comments made at that time by Conservative Ministers, who were proposing reforms that would lead to the greater efficiency of the House, and therefore to the better working of Parliament,

bringing the House more abreast of the times. That was to be a reform in relation to composition, without dealing with the fundamental questions.
Despite what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) may say, Labour Members want both stage 1 and stage 2. That was set out clearly in our manifesto. The amendments and new clauses are a fairly obvious attempt to delay the removal of the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote. It is perhaps significant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, that Conservative Members now limit themselves to attempting merely to delay the reforms and do not oppose them outright.

Dr. Fox: If it is such a point of principle and the Government want stage 1 as an end in itself, as something that they promised in their manifesto, why has the Leader of the House already said that the Government will accept the Weatherill proposals, which are the complete opposite of what was in the manifesto?

Mr. Hoon: I will deal with that point in a moment. We are discussing the means, not the ends in themselves. In 1958, the then Lord Chancellor pointed out that there had been no fewer than 10 unsuccessful attempts over a period of 100 years to change the composition of the House of Lords. He said that they were all unsuccessful because someone had forgotten that the best can so often be the enemy of the good.
The Government want both stage 1 and stage 2. The amendments and new clauses will not help us to achieve that. We have made it clear, in a White Paper and elsewhere, that we are committed to reform of the composition of the House of Lords. The first step, as was made perfectly clear in the manifesto, is to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote.

Mr. Tyrie: Are the Government also committed to a democratically elected second Chamber?

Mr. Hoon: That is clearly a matter for the royal commission to advise on, for both Houses to resolve, and for further debate. We have said how that debate can take place.
Our ambition is to remove the rights of all hereditary peers. The point about the so-called Weatherill or Cranborne proposals is that there will be a great deal of enthusiasm behind me at the Dispatch Box for ensuring that the interim arrangements, if they are approved, are indeed only interim arrangements. Government Back Benchers will expect the Government to deliver the manifesto promise to remove the right of all hereditary peers to vote.

Mr. Letwin: To allay our suspicions, what is the Government's timetable for the implementation of phase 2?

Mr. Hoon: We have had a great deal of discussion about consensus. If there is consensus, and we move quickly through the royal commission and the Joint Committee, there is no reason why measures could not be introduced before a general election. That is a perfectly possible timetable; it is set out in the White Paper and it could be achieved. It clearly depends on achieving consensus.
We have been debating this for a very long time, not just 88 years, because the Parliament Act 1911 was the culmination of a long period of debate about the role and composition of the second Chamber. The royal commission will have plenty of material to be going on with, and there is no reason why it should not review that material and reach a judgment fairly quickly.

Mr. Leigh: The Minister knows perfectly well that there is no consensus. The Government must govern. Will he give a commitment that the nature of stage 2 will be clear to the British people by the next general election?

Mr. Hoon: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the possibility of achieving consensus. In the most recent example of efforts to reform the second Chamber, in 1968, there was consensus. The Conservative party accepted the results of the various discussions and withdrew from supporting the proposals not because it opposed them in principle, but for a completely different reason. Consensus was reached fairly quickly in 1968. Why should not the royal commission do the same this time?
We are debating resolving the question of eliminating from our further discussions the issue of hereditary peers, and there is no need for us to debate the second stage in that context. We want to concentrate the discussion on the future, not the past, and ensure that we have a properly informed debate without the role of the hereditary peers interfering in it as it has in the past.
Many Conservative Members have referred to the fact that we have not been able to have a proper debate about the future composition of the House of Lords, simply because the issue has been confused by the context of the hereditary peers. It is important to resolve that question once and for all. That is what the Bill will do.
Amendment No. 5 is designed to delay the removal of the hereditary peers until the end of the current Parliament, and we have made it clear that it is important not to delay that long. Amendment No. 6 is presumably intended to be consequential on it, but it could have separate effects. It is designed to prevent the cancellation of existing writs of summons, which run the length of the Parliament.
Amendment No. 6 would import uncertainty to the Bill because it is not certain that without the provision peers would still be able to claim that their writs entitled them to a seat. There is a danger that it would operate separately, in that if amendment No. 5 were to be rejected and No. 6 accepted, a peer would have the right both to sit and vote in the House of Lords and to seek election to the House of Commons. I assume that those who tabled the amendment did not intend that.
New clause 1 would provide for the Act to lapse automatically at the end of the Parliament in which it is passed. In that case, unless further legislation had been passed in the meantime, the House of Lords as it is today would be recreated, and hereditary peers would once again become Members of the House of Lords. There are various objections to that. It would promote considerable

uncertainty, but above all else the new clause is unacceptable because it would give those opposed to reform an incentive to delay the second stage and restore the status quo ante. We cannot support that and I doubt, in reality, that it can really be the Conservative party's intention.
New clause 2 would provide for the Act to lapse automatically two years after the proposed Joint Committee reported on the outcome of the royal commission's work. Again, unless further legislation had been passed in the meantime, that would mean that the House of Lords would be recreated. Hereditary peers would become eligible for membership of the House of Lords, but would lose their right to vote or stand in parliamentary elections, although in the mean time they could quite legitimately have been entered on the register of electors.
If the trigger point fell just before the next general election—possibly during the campaign—the effect on those hereditary peers who had been selected as parliamentary candidates would be far from clear. If it fell in the middle of a parliamentary Session, the effect on legislation already before the House of Lords is also not clear. The Bill provides for its coming into force after the end of the Session, precisely to avoid such problems. New clause 2 is confused and should be rejected, if for no other reason than that it is legally and politically uncertain in its effects.
New clause 13 provides that the Act will lapse and the provisions of the Peerage Act 1963 will be reinstated if a further Act has not been passed in this Parliament dealing with the composition of the House of Lords. Again, it is far from clear, because it does not define precisely what the trigger Bill might be. For example, would a Bill amending the Life Peerages Act 1958 so as to allow for a retirement age or a disclaimer of titles count? Such uncertainty is obviously unsatisfactory, and the new clause should not be accepted.
New clause 18 would provide for the Act to lapse three years after Royal Assent. The Bill provides for its substantive provisions to come into force at the end of the Session in which it is passed. That is precisely to avoid problems with legislation caught in mid-Session. The new clause would not avoid that danger and the Act could well come into effect in July or October 2002, right in the middle of a parliamentary Session, once again producing considerable uncertainty as to its effects.
New clause 10 was briefly mentioned in today's debate. It would add nothing to the Government's existing commitment to progressing further with Lords reforms. It would have no legal effect and there is no good reason why the statute book should be cluttered up with extra material of no consequence. On that basis, it should not form part of the Bill.
I repeat what I said at the outset: the Government are committed to stage 1 and to stage 2. If we do not definitively settle the question of the hereditary peers, we present ourselves with an obstacle to sensible debate and long-term reform. We have one party with a large vested interest in the status quo, and the very presence of the hereditary peers increases the temptation to look for difficulties, not solutions, in the reform of the House of Lords. The two-stage process is entirely consistent with


British traditions of proceeding by evolution rather than by way of dramatic change.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 322.

Division No. 85]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Letwin, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Baldry, Tony
Lidington, David


Beggs, Roy
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maples, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Butterfill, John
May, Mrs Theresa


Cash, William
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Nicholls, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Clappison, James
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Page Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Prior, David


Day, Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Nigel
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fabricant, Michael
Ruffley, David


Fallon, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Flight, Howard
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Soames, Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Spring, Richard


Gale, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Garnier, Edward
Steen, Anthony


Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Syms, Robert


Gray, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Green, Damian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Greenway, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hague, Rt Hon William
Townend, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tredinnick, David


Hammond, Philip
Trend, Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wardle, Charles


Horam, John
Waterson, Nigel


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whittingdale, John


Hunter, Andrew
Willetts, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Woodward, Shaun


Jenkin, Bernard
Yeo, Tim


Johnson Smith,
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey



Key, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Sir David Madel.





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainger, Nick
Dalyell, Tam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darvill, Keith


Allan, Richard
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Allen, Graham
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dawson, Hilton


Atkins, Charlotte
Dean, Mrs Janet


Austin, John
Dismore, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Drown, Ms Julia


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Edwards, Huw


Begg, Miss Anne
Efford, Clive


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Ennis, Jeff


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Benton, Joe
Fitzsimons, Loma


Bermingham, Gerald
Flint, Caroline


Best, Harold
Flynn, Paul


Blackman, Liz
Follett, Barbara


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Borrow, David
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Galloway, George


Bradshaw, Ben
Gapes, Mike


Brake, Tom
Gardiner, Barry


Brand, Dr Peter
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Browne, Desmond
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burden, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burgon, Colin
Goggins, Paul


Burnett, John
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burstow, Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Grogan, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caplin, Ivor
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Casale, Roger
Harris, Dr Evan


Caton, Martin
Harvey, Nick


Cawsey, Ian
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Chidgey, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Clapham, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hope, Phil


Clelland, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Connarty, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cooper, Yvette
Hurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corston, Ms Jean
Illsley, Eric


Cotter, Brian
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cranston, Ross
Jamieson, David


Crausby, David
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cummings, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
(Welwyn Hatfield)






Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny
Plaskitt, James (Wolverh'ton SW)



Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rammell, Bill


Kirkwood, Archy
Rapson, Syd


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Raynsford, Nick


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rendel, David


Laxton, Bob
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooker, Jeff


Linton, Martin
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruane, Chris


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruddock, Joan


Lock, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Love, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Salter, Martin


McCabe, Steve
Sanders, Adrian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Savidge, Malcolm


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sawford, Phil


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McIsaac, Shona
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Shipley, Ms Debra


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McNulty, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Singh, Marsha


Mactaggart, Fiona
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Miller, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Moore, Michael
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morley, Elliot
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mountford, Kali
Stott, Roger


Mudie, George
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stringer, Graham


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Oaten, Mark (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Öpik, Lembit
Temple-Morris, Peter


Osborne Ms Sandra
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pearson, Ian
Tipping, Paddy


Pendry, Tom
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon





Truswell, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Willis, Phil


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wills, Michael


Tyler, Paul
Winnick, David 


Wallace, James
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Wareing, Robert N
Woolas, Phil


Watts, David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Webb, Steve



Welsh, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. David Hanson and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Letwin: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 1, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert—
'(2) Holders of hereditary peerages shall be entered on to the electoral register at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed and at any time after the end of Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed the holders of hereditary peerages shall be entitled to vote in elections to the House of Commons.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'such'.
No. 34, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'or the European Parliament'.
No. 33, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'as he considers appropriate' and insert
'in order to give effect to section 2 of this Act.'.
No. 7, in page 1, line 23, leave out from 'enactment' to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert—
'(5) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Letwin: After the shock of that terrible defeat, let me move on to the next group of amendments.
We have so far debated the great question to which clause 4(1) gives rise about the relationship between stage 1 and stage 2 and the Government's desire and ability, or otherwise, to move on to stage 2. This group of amendments deals with the remainder of clause 4. I can relieve the Leader of the House and the Committee by saying that we have no problem with the entirely anodyne and welcome aim of clause 4 to restore the right of hereditary peers, who will no longer be able to sit and vote in the House of Lords, to vote at parliamentary elections. Members on both sides of the Committee have waxed eloquent on the propriety of peers having those democratic rights, and we wholly subscribe to the view that they should. There is nothing between the Conservatives and the Government on that aim.
The problem, however, is the way in which clause 4 seeks to achieve that aim in subsections (2), (3) and (4). I doubt whether Ministers intended to do anything improper or unusual in the drafting of clause 4. The Leader of the House may find my remarks surprising, believing that the drafting was not out of the ordinary. I suspect that the genesis of those three subsections was


that people who are learned in these matters—the Government's legal service and the parliamentary draftsmen—sought to achieve the aim given them by the right hon. Lady to restore the rights of hereditaries to vote. They produced clause 2, and they were told to produce some transitional provisions.
Alas, in carrying out their task, they have displayed just about every constitutional and juridical vice possible. None of those vices is unprecedented, but the clause is a textbook case. It is a sort of Christmas tree on which have been hung all the ghastly presents passed down by draftsmen past. If we are not careful to say something about that—or, better still, to do something about it—those presents will become subject to the hereditary principle; they will be handed down to the next set of draftsmen and they will appear in other Bills, in which their effects may be much wider, in circumstances in which the aims are less laudable than those of clause 4.
First, let me deal with a minor point. I apologise in advance to the Leader of the House in case I have made an error. If so, I shall be happy to be corrected. I believe that clause 4(3) contains a technical defect, in that their lordships already have the right to vote in European elections. The provision of that right is therefore unnecessary. That is a minor point, and I do not seek to criticise anyone or to pay much attention to the point. My other points are more serious.
Subsection (3) also contains the widest possible order-making power. It states:
The Secretary of State may by order make such transitional provision … as he considers appropriate.
That may appear to be a perfectly normal piece of drafting, but the final words are there for one purpose and one purpose only—to give the Secretary of State the widest possible latitude in designing the order. That is the opposite of what Parliament ought to seek to do in passing primary legislation: we ought to constrain the powers of the Secretary of State as far as we can.
In case the Leader of the House or any of her hon. Friends intends to leap in to tell me that previous Governments, including those of my own party, have been guilty of taking wide order-making powers, I am happy to admit that there has been that tendency. However, I do not wish—and I hope the right hon. Lady does not wish—to repeat the sins of the past. Now is as good a time as any to try to put matters right. Clause 4(3) is an example of the worst kind.
If that were all, because such powers have been so frequently taken, and although I have made it my practice on every possible occasion since my election to the House to point such matters out, I must admit that my case would not be strong. Alas, clause 4(4)(a) contains the next ghastly legislative vice—the famed Henry VIII clause. The Secretary of State will not only be allowed to make such provisions as he considers appropriate. He will be allowed to
modify the effect of any enactment or any provision made under an enactment".
Who knows how judges will see such powers now that they have multiplied out of all proportion? I attach some significance to the fact that the powers are being built into a major constitutional Bill that will attract the attention of the courts and the constitutional commentators.
Taken at face value, clause 4(4)(a) allows the Secretary of State to do by order just about anything to just about any previous enactment so long as he—and this is

the test—considers the action appropriate. We would not want that if we were starting with a clean piece of paper and considering what primary legislation a responsible House of Commons should pass.
I regret that that is not the end of the matter. Having given the wide powers, including the Henry VIII provision, clause 4(4)(b) adds the third vice of which we have seen all too much—and again in the context of a major constitutional Bill. As the Secretary of State was being given the widest possible powers, including the power by order to modify an enactment—something dreadful that has crept into our legislation—one might have thought that there would have been an attempt to create an element of constitutional or juridical decency by allowing the House of Commons to vote the thing in before it became an order. Not a bit of it! Clause 4(4)(b) provides for the order to be made by negative resolution. We all know what that means: on the whole, such orders go through on the nod. I do not say that these provisions will, because they are matters of great moment. Someone may pick them up and they may be debated. However, there is no point in negative resolution procedure unless the Government want to weight things in favour of their going through on the nod.
This is a major constitutional Bill that does something of importance in conveying a democratic right to a set of people, but it is done in a way that exhibits each of the three tendencies—the negative resolution procedure; the power to repeal and change Acts by order; and decisions being governed only by an appropriateness test—that have most bedevilled primary legislation over the past five, 10 or 15 years. Those tendencies started their sorry journey into legislative history 20, 30 or 40 years ago. If they were absolutely necessary, I suppose that we could understand it, but they are not.
Amendment No. 22 is designed to resolve the problem cleanly and clearly. It would put straightforwardly into statute provisions equivalent to the admirable clarity of clause 2. It would compel the entry into the electoral register of the names of those who need to be given democratic rights, with no orders, no negative resolutions and no Henry VIII clauses. That would end the need for the rest of clause 4. We cannot see the slightest reason why it should prove inoperable or why the Government should resist it.
In fact, this is where the whole thing begins to be interesting rather than merely a sorry tale. We have much scratched our heads asking ourselves why, given that the Leader of the House did not ask for it to be done in this way, it was done in this way. Why did all the learned, clever people employed by the Government to think these things through choose to display in a major constitutional Bill all the vices in a compact Christmas package? Perhaps it was oversight, but we doubt it. On reflection, we think that there is a reason, which has to do with the ghost in the machine that we see in the whole Bill and to which we have often alluded.
8.15 pm
We think that the problem is this. I should be delighted if the right hon. Lady told me that I am wrong. So far as it goes, clause 2 is fine. Unfortunately, in another place, after the Government have perhaps accepted the Weatherill amendment, clause 2 will cause some difficulty. Hereditary peers will not be disqualified from voting, but they will


have a rather remarkable franchise. They will have the right to elect not a Member of Parliament but a Member of the upper House—by rumour, 90-odd such Members. They will have that right not as part of a constituency of 60,000 or 70,000 electors but as one of 500 electors. Under those circumstances, the Secretary of State may wish to do all sorts of things to make transitional provisions that do not allow those who are in one way or another taking part in the Weatherill election to take part also in a normal democratic election, such as one to the House of Commons. We have no idea whether that is the case because we—I assume like the Leader of the House—do not know what the Weatherill amendment contains or may contain. Perhaps it will not even be moved.

Mrs. Beckett: I may be able to save the hon. Gentleman much tortuous thought. He and his colleagues seem to have spent much time anticipating all sorts of Machiavellian Government behaviour that does not exist. There is a simple reason for the provisions: our desire to be as helpful as possible in giving people who will lose their rights to sit in another place their proper rights as citizens at the earliest point possible, even if that should come at a time inconvenient from the point of view of the normal construction of an electoral register. It is no more or less than that.

Mr. Letwin: If that is the sole reason, as it may be, the right hon. Lady will have no difficulty in accepting amendment No. 22 because it compels inclusion in the electoral register. The criterion would be fulfilled as a matter of law. If the right hon. Lady thinks that it will not work, it would be interesting to know why.
I continue to believe that there is a subtext. It is likely that there will be a considerable mess when we get to the Weatherill amendment in respect of ensuring that the right people get, or do not get, the right to vote in parliamentary elections. I do not know how that will be resolved. I know that the right hon. Lady—if, as I suspect, she is being straight with us about not knowing what the Weatherill amendment will look like—cannot know how that will all come out. There is at least an appearance that this provision creates latitude and discretion to try to deal with that problem. If she says that that was not the intent, I am delighted to hear it. If it is not, she should subscribe all the more readily to amendment No. 22, in which case the problem that I think may have existed in the minds of those who drafted the provisions will not apply. If it turns out that I am right about the reason, we shall have the bizarre position that the cause of these juridical vices is, as we have repeatedly said, another sort of outrage: the outrage of parliamentary blackmail.
I know that the Leader of the House maintains—I think, perfectly sincerely—that there is nothing wrong with the Government wanting to get their business through smoothly and being willing to make a major concession to do so. As with many such things, it depends which end of the telescope one is looking through. To us, the very same thing is differently described: it constitutes a statement by the Government that part of the constitution would be right if their lordships had behaved themselves, but wrong if they had not. That is the wrong way in principle to go about constitutional reform. If I am right that at least part of the cause of the elaborate and horrible

procedure in clause 4, with the three vices that I mentioned, is the process that I have described as parliamentary blackmail, we have an unfortunate case of one vice begetting another.
If the Leader of the House wholly denies that chain of logic, that is marvellous. She can then surely accept amendment No. 22, because it clearly puts the onus on anyone who wants to obey the law—as returning officers and the whole of local government will want to—to ensure that hereditary peers are put on the register. I have to say that, in that event, if and when the Weatherill amendments are accepted, it will be necessary to amend both clause 2 and clause 4. I doubt whether the Leader of the House will deny that. Then we will have a clean amendment of clean clauses. That is how the thing ought to run. When the Bill comes back to the House after the amendments have been moved in the other place, we shall be able to see whether the process that it inaugurates is workable and sensible. We have not been able to debate the Weatherill amendments in advance because we have not seen them, but at least we shall be able to do so ex post.

Mr. Grieve: I wait with great interest to hear what the Leader of the House has to say, but I find that the thrust of amendment No. 22 is straightforward. The amendment provides in statutory form the objective that appears to be desired by all parties in the House. It will be right for hereditary peers, as the amendment says, to be
entered on to the electoral register at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed and at any time after the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed the holders of hereditary peerages shall be entitled to vote in elections to the House of Commons.
What is the harm in spelling that out?
Clause 2 says:
The holder of a hereditary peerage shall not be disqualified by virtue of that peerage",
but thereafter the power is reserved to the Government to decide when the clause will be introduced. What is the rational logic of that and what is the drawback to amendment No. 22?
I am perfectly prepared to accept what the Leader of the House said. One of the reasons for introducing legislation by statutory instrument—heaven knows, we have heard this on countless occasions in proceedings on various bits of legislation, including the Henry VIII clause in the Human Rights Bill—is to ensure that something which needs to be done and which everyone agrees ought to be done can be done swiftly when the occasion arises. But if one knows precisely when the occasion will arise because it is clear that it will arise when a particular event happens, why on earth is the occasion not written into the Bill? I wait with great interest to hear from the Leader of the House why that is not so. On any analysis, I cannot see that amendment No. 22 could cause the Government any difficulty.

Mr. Letwin: Would my hon. Friend like to remedy a deficiency that I now see in my speech by outlining what he sees as the timetable for enactment and entry on the register?

Mr. Grieve: If the legislation contained the amendment, upon enactment, as the amendment states


perfectly straightforwardly, at the end of the Session of Parliament in which the Act is passed—assuming that we are operating on this year's time scale, it would be at the end of October in the hiatus before the state opening—the names of hereditary peers would be entered on the electoral register to entitle them to vote in elections to the House of Commons thereafter.
One has to say, and I think my hon. Friend has said it, that the only potential problem might be the Weatherill amendment. The Government have told us not just once but repeatedly that we are not allowed to second-guess the Weatherill amendment. It is apparently a non-event. We have to assume that it will never happen. It is just one of those possibilities—a twinkle in the corner of the right hon. Lady's eye, but nothing more than that. If that is the case, being logical—I hope that I am being logical in applying a legal mind to the matter—amendment No. 22 must be correct.
It can hardly be surprising that when we are told by the Government that our amendment is not necessary because they prefer to make the provision under their powers to make statutory instruments, we ask why.

Mr. Maclennan: I am interested in the amendment, but I wonder whether there might not be a problem with it. There are certain categories of people who are excluded from privilege of voting, including people with certain mental conditions and people in jail. Amendment No. 22 would have the no doubt inadvertent effect of repealing those requirements so that hereditary peers, albeit criminals languishing in jail or people suffering from a mental condition, would be empowered to vote. I do not think that that would be sensible.

Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I can see that the amendment might produce that mischief, but the way to correct it is for the Leader of the House to say, "We accept the thrust of the amendment and on Report we will introduce an amendment of our own to do exactly that." All that she would need to add would be "subject to the normal disqualifications" or some other phrase that the genius of the legal draftsmen would have little difficulty in providing. While I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point, therefore, it does not deal with the reason why the provision has to be made by ministerial decree.

Mr. Letwin: I want to put it on the record that what we heard from the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely fair cop; that we have made an error; and that the remedy is exactly as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are, after all, the Opposition, and we do not have all the facilities that the Government have for drafting legislation or amendments. One of the purposes of the Committee is to enable us to suggest ideas that might be good. In this context, we think that the amendment is a very good idea. So why are we not to be allowed to have it? I do not understand why the right hon. Lady has already hinted that we shall be denied it.
Surely a central approach to all legislation is that we should at all times endeavour to deal with matters by primary legislation. Only if there is some compelling reason why they should be dealt with by statutory

instrument should we so deal with them. Heaven knows, I am a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. One only has to see the wretched burden that is foisted on our shoulders on a weekly basis, often poorly drafted because it has been badly scrutinised, to know that it is much better if properly drafted primary legislation is introduced. On that basis, I commend amendment No. 22 to the House because it is a most desirable amendment. I shall need a lot of persuading by the Leader of the House that we should approach the matter in some other way.
The other thing that the Government cannot get away from is that in some way a sword of Damocles is being held over the other place. I accept that the Leader of the House will say, "No, of course there is not; that is ridiculous." However, when we see something left to the discretion of a Minister which should not be, because it affects the constitutional rights of Members of the other place who will be deprived of their constitutional rights, it behoves us to spell it out in black and white that, on losing the right to represent themselves in the other place, they will acquire a straightforward right to vote in elections for Members of the House of Commons. I hope that, at the end of the debate, the right hon. Lady will tell us that she is willing to think again on that point; I cannot see any legitimate reason why she should do otherwise.
8.30 pm
I do not intend to take up the Committee's time on the other amendments, other than to say a word about amendment No. 32, which is extremely short. Although it would only leave out the word "such" in line 17, it is one of those small amendments that has a compelling purpose. Clause 4 provides that:
The Secretary of State may … make such transitional provision about the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages to vote at elections",
but surely that should read "transitional provision", not "such transitional provision". Why is the word "such" there? The only possible purpose for its being there—at this stage, conspiracy theories begin to surface in my mind—is to limit in some way the entitlement of the Leader of the House in making that transitional provision. The clause should deal with a transitional provision and no more than that. I await with great interest to hear why that word is there.
From past experience of serving on Committees—not necessarily in the Chamber, but upstairs as well—it strikes me as extraordinary how all sorts of funny words creep into legislation, when there is absolutely no reason why they should appear. I remember that in the case of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, we had foisted on us a provision forbidding the playing of "musical or other instruments", which raised strange ideas in my mind as to what other instruments might be played in a public procession.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Drums.

Mr. Grieve: I think that a drum would probably qualify as a musical instrument, but I shall not be diverted from my main purpose, which is to try to ensure that the Bill before us is comprehensible and straightforward.
The main issue remains that we should proceed by way of primary legislation unless there is a good reason not to do so. There is no good reason in this case. It is well


within the wit of the House of Commons to provide in the Bill for the rights that hereditary peers will be entitled to when they cease to have the right to represent themselves in the upper House.

Mr. Swayne: The issue before us is one for which I have a great deal of enthusiasm. The matter has been thoroughly dealt with by my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), so I shall not detain the Committee by repeating what they said. However, I shall say that the issue is of monumental importance, for it is the question of the way in which we are governed. It is for that reason that I sought election to Parliament.
This country is being deluged and wrecked by poorly drafted and poorly thought through secondary legislation—some 2,300 such instruments every year, almost 20 for every parliamentary sitting day. From having sat on various Committees, we all know the level of scrutiny that it is possible to give those instruments. It is a nonsense, given that we have in the House an effective and well-oiled machine for passing primary legislation. We should therefore confine ourselves, in so far as it is possible, to enacting primary legislation. Of course, it would give us far less time to deal with such legislation if all the consequent detail of those enabling measures had to be dealt with in each Bill. We would have less law, but that would be to our great benefit because we are over-governed.
It is a matter of great regret that the dreadful principle of enabling legislation, which so pollutes our polity, is now, through this Bill, to be brought to the very heart of our constitution. That a constitutional Bill should contain order-making powers—Henry VIII clauses—is deeply regrettable and offensive. For that reason, I have great enthusiasm for the amendments, especially amendment No. 22. The Committee's attention has already been drawn to the specific respect in which the amendment is defective, but there is a speedy remedy available, and I hope that the Leader of the House will indicate that it is her intention to deal with it, or at least to give good and plausible reasons why she will not do so.

Mr. Graham Brady: Have we not had an illustration this evening of how scrutiny can work in this House? In searching out the defect in our amendment, it might not have been the sole intention of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) to illustrate the value of having a proper debate in Committee, but in so doing he has applied proper scrutiny to the amendment. However, we are being denied the opportunity to scrutinise the Government's detailed proposals.

Mr. Swayne: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has done the Committee and, indeed, Parliament, a singular service by drawing to our attention the importance of such scrutiny. After all, that is what Committee stage is for.
Throughout the Committee stage, we are constrained by the opacity of the real agenda behind the Bill and by the monstrous notion that everything is to be changed by an alleged amendment that might or might not be moved in another place. An almost identical amendment,

tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), has already been rejected by the Committee, so it strikes me as absurd that our subsequent debate has been constrained by that hypothetical future amendment.

Mr. Letwin: Although the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has done us a real service, since acknowledging to him that his was a fair cop, we have had an opportunity to reflect further and we are no longer quite so convinced that amendment No. 22, as drafted, would override the existing provisions. It might be a matter of intention. I hope that either my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) or the Leader of the House will enlighten us on that point.

Mr. Swayne: With respect, that is what the Leader of the House is for, in her capacity as occupant of the Treasury Bench during this debate. I hope that she will take the opportunity at least to say that she will consider the amendment and that a similar or identical amendment will be tabled on Report. I have noticed that, during these debates, the right hon. Lady has a habit of moving her lips silently, denying the Committee the benefit of hearing her words.

Mrs. Beckett: Be grateful.

Mr. Swayne: Perhaps we should be. On that, I shall conclude my remarks, so that we may hear what the right hon. Lady has to say all the sooner.

Mr. Forth: Here we go again—I think that that is the appropriate phrase to use at this point in our proceedings. I shall resist the temptation to refer to the fact that we are considering clause 4, as that would probably be inappropriate at this stage. That thought crossed my mind when the Leader of the House intervened earlier effectively to say, "Trust me". That is a touching request, but one that I find rather easy to resist. We cannot proceed on that sort of basis in an area this important and this uncertain.
The amendments are important because they highlight an extraordinary part of the Bill. Before I commence my brief analysis of clause 4, subsections (3) and (4), I must make it clear that when we are operating in an environment of such uncertainty, it is perhaps inevitable that the Government should want to build a degree of flexibility into the Bill. For that reason, the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) have not yet persuaded me totally. He seeks a clean, simple solution, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). However, I think that there must be some flexibility in legislation of this kind, especially given its background.
As we have often said, we do not know what stage 1 will be or how long it will last. We do not know what might happen to the Bill in another place. No matter how much my hon. Friend would like to see it, it may be a little unrealistic to seek to nail down the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is bad for an Act to contain bad provisions on the ground that one bad feature necessitates another? Surely the remedy lies in improving the first bad provision.

Mr. Forth: Of course that is so—if we enjoyed the certainty and predictability of knowing where we were


going and where we would end up. Everyone would like to know that. Unfortunately, we are not in that position. This Bill must be considered in light of the fact that we do not know what lies beyond it or where it is taking us. Nevertheless, I am prepared to concede—as I am in a generous mood, which, uncharacteristically, is not shared by my hon. Friends—that a degree of flexibility is required at this stage. However, I then turn to the provisions of clause 4—which are the subject of the amendments before us—

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, but I do not follow the logic of his argument. He said that there may be changes later in another place—I fully accept that point, which has been discussed at some length. However, there is surely no reason why the Government should not introduce a contingent amendment that would bring the Bill back into order. I cannot see any reason not to correct the Bill today.

Mr. Forth: That is an interesting and rather persuasive argument. If we were to do what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has suggested, the Bill would become more certain and predictable in the context of our current knowledge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) points out, it would be possible for the Government to return to the Bill during subsequent legislative stages, and, in light of the knowledge that pertained then, introduce changes to make it more relevant. My hon. Friend is correct in his analysis, which may ultimately persuade me to support the amendment.
I draw the attention of the Committee and my hon. Friends to clause 4(3), which contains a succession of phrases that should alert all hon. Members and make them feel uneasy and nervous. The clause states that our old friend the Secretary of State
may by order make such transitional provision … as he considers appropriate.
That is a double dose of the sort of uncertainty and unlimited powers that we have learned to feel nervous about. That is bad enough, but clause 4(4) says that an order
may modify the effect of enactment or any provision made under an enactment".
That is about as broad as it gets. The clause gives the Secretary of State total flexibility, which would apparently enable him to do whatever he thought appropriate at the time. It sets no limitations and gives no direction or guidance. Therefore, it provides no certainty, no guarantees and no encouragement as to what might happen. The provision is completely open-ended.
If we combine that with the legislation's existing provisions, it strengthens one's feeling of unease. We are now entitled to be thoroughly suspicious of what has prompted the Government to include those sorts of provisions in the Bill and what they think might or might not happen or might go wrong in the future. That is worrying at this stage.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given that there is an element on the Labour Benches who believe in class warfare, is not my right hon. Friend alive to the risk that the Government could modify the arrangements to

discriminate between one class of hereditary peer and another? For example, they might discriminate against viscounts or dukes and make alternative arrangements for mere barons.

Mr. Forth: I suppose that that is possible. Normally, I should have said that it is unlikely, but as my hon. Friend has pointed out, such is the dislike—that is a moderate word in this case—of the hereditary peers on the Government Benches that one might believe that any such action is possible. The provision not only gives no protection against such action, it would positively allow it. We should, at the very least, seek reassurances about that from the Leader of the House when she replies to the debate.
As if things were not bad enough, clause 4(4)(b) refers to
a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution".
As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed out a moment ago, when one allows for orders to be made by statutory instruments—a procedure with which we are familiar—no amendment may be made. Under that provision, a measure comes before the House on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Mr. Letwin: My right hon. Friend may be aware that tonight the House will be asked to nod through a statutory instrument that contains an egregious flaw precisely because it could not be amended in Committee.

Mr. Forth: I am aware of the motions on the Order Paper. We shall be asked to approve those and I hope that the House will be aware of difficulties in that provision and take a view on that matter. My hon. Friend's point illustrates very well the difficulty in which we may find ourselves with the Bill. Clause 4 contains a succession of phrases such as "may by order", "as he considers appropriate", and
may modify the effect of any enactment",
leading, finally, to
shall be made by statutory instrument",
so that the only protection left in the Bill is that the House can take or leave any measures that are proposed.
That is no protection at all because, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has just pointed out—I know that he feels strongly about this and is knowledgeable about the subject—we have on today's Order Paper a measure that has gone through the very process outlined in the Bill, and which is defective, yet the House can only accept or reject it. That is not good enough. I do not like to criticise the procedures of this place, above all places, but I regret to say that it is a flaw in our procedures. That will be compounded by the provision in clause 4(4)(b).
Where does that leave us? It leaves us in a great deal of difficulty. I am now persuaded, largely thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, that the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, which I judged too quickly and too harshly earlier, would make an appropriate alteration to the Bill at this stage. However, I think that my hon. Friend and I would agree that if the amendment were subsequently overtaken by events of which we now know little or nothing, we would accept that the Government


would want to reconsider the provision and make further changes. That, in itself, would hardly be a satisfactory approach because amendments may be made in another place and the Bill may return here in a completely different form, in which case all our deliberations, which we are taking very seriously, would be as nothing. That is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs, but it is regrettably the position in which we find ourselves. I am persuaded—in fact, I have persuaded myself during my brief contribution—that I should support the amendment, but with the reservations that I have outlined. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give us more reassurance than we have had so far so that we may proceed in a more orderly way.

Mr. Maclennan: I have listened to the debate with interest and not without sympathy because, on the face of it, clause 4 does appear to be a Henry VIII clause. Naturally, I am rather unhappy to see that in a Bill of such importance. However, there are some difficulties with the amendments and new clauses. I alluded tentatively to a couple that sprang to mind, but I see some others.
One problem is the age of majority for voting purposes. Amendment No. 22 appears to waive the requirement to have attained the age of majority. It may be thought that the peculiar abilities of the hereditary peers mean that that is not of great significance. After all, this House has in the past provided a special distinction for women. Before the flapper vote was introduced, women were not allowed to vote under the age of 30, so the courts might take the view that Parliament had intended peers to be able to vote at any age.

Mr. Grieve: I am absolutely fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Even if it were true that the proposal would not be open to judicial interpretation by taking into consideration the restrictions that exist for ordinary mortals, simply adding an extra sentence saying that the provision was subject to the relevant clauses of the Representation of the People Acts would solve the whole problem, would it not?

Mr. Maclennan: Well, yes, but that is the point—so many further matters have to be taken into account that it might be better to proceed by way of subordinate legislation and spell out what has to be considered.
Amendment No. 22 states:
Holders of hereditary peerages shall be entered on to the electoral register".
That imposes a duty, but it is not specified on whom. It also puts peers in a rather peculiar category.
Ordinary mortals are entitled to vote only once they appear on the electoral register, having complied with the registration process by submitting a form that they have filled in, showing where they live and that sort of thing. The amendment involves a duty, but it is not specific; nor is it placed on a specific person. Although the intention behind the proposal is meritorious, the method proposed is defective. However, I look forward with great interest to hearing why the Government are proceeding as they are, and I do not want to postpone that enjoyment any longer.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has certainly enjoyed himself this evening. He referred earlier to having a frolic. We do not usually associate him with frolics, but he certainly disported himself with oratorical eloquence. However, this is a serious amendment, and I urge the Leader of the House to treat it seriously.
For the purpose of this argument, I urge hon. Members to accept that the Government are saying that the House of Lords has to be reformed because its legitimacy is defective. That is the premise on which the Bill is based. If we accept that, it is most extraordinary that a Bill of this nature should have at its heart a Henry VIII clause. There is no more illegitimate device—I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is nodding—than the Henry VIII clause, which gives a Secretary of State draconian powers. If the Government are trying to claim that, by this Bill, they are improving our constitutional and parliamentary system, why in the name of goodness do they put a Henry VIII clause at the centre—especially when there is no justification for such a clause?
We are not dealing with emergency legislation. We all accept that, on occasions, the House must, with great reluctance, give a Secretary of State wide and sweeping powers. We have done so, from time to time, in connection with Northern Ireland and other emergencies. I always find that a difficult pill to swallow, but I can sometimes accept that the national interest demands that I do so. That is not so in this case. The Leader of the House will have to put up a very good defence if she is to persuade us that it is.
I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who moved the amendment so eloquently. He said that he had always had grave misgivings about Henry VIII clauses. He has not had the good fortune to be in the House for very long, and we have not had the good fortune to benefit from his sage counsel and wise advice for very long. Some of us who have been hon. Members for a long time have rebelled against such clauses, even when introduced by our own parties. I cannot for the life of me see the justification for such a clause. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say that it is to enable writs of acceleration to be given, so that peers may be put on the electoral register very quickly, but that is not a substantial argument.
The interesting and somewhat mischievous point raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross does not hold water. He argued that, in effect, we would be giving the franchise to legions of lunatic, criminal or infant peers, who would swamp the electoral register, destroying at a stroke—or, perhaps, three strokes—the principles on which it is based. He knows, and I know, that that is arrant nonsense. If, at the time of enactment, a noble lord happens to be languishing at Her Majesty's pleasure—that has happened before; the Leader of the House must not become too hoity-toity about it—is anybody seriously suggesting that that criminal lord, or perhaps somebody detained elsewhere in a straitjacket, would immediately have the franchise conferred on him, and that the removal of one disqualification would automatically lead to the removal of another? Of course it would not.
Even if the Leader of the House, who is renowned for her desire to play safe on all occasions, thought that such a contingency posed a risk, all she would have to do is


add to the amendment words similar to those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—"subject to the Representation of the People Act", and so on. None the less, that is not a particularly valid argument. It was an Aunt Sally, suggested with mischievous eloquence and elegance by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.
If, by any chance, the Leader of the House is not minded to accept amendment No. 22—I believe and hope that she is, because it does not detract one iota from the purport or intention of the Government's Bill—I draw her attention to amendment No. 7. That amendment does at least mean that we have some safeguards. It states:
No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
That is something of a safeguard. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that it is valid.
We seek to ensure that wide-ranging and unnecessary powers are not bestowed on the Secretary of State—the emphasis is on the word "unnecessary"—that there is a strict limitation on precisely what the Bill does, and that that is clear and unambiguous. After all, that should be the aim of legislation. It should be understandable to all those to whom it applies. Some of the snide comments by Labour Members about hereditary peers show that some extra comprehensibility should commend itself to them.

9 pm

Mrs. Beckett: At the outset of the debate, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that nothing on aims divided us and that it was a matter merely of how the aims that we shared were given effect. For once, he and I are wholeheartedly in agreement.
The hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on another matter. He kindly said that he was positive that the Government were acting in good faith. I return the compliment. I am sure that the Opposition are also acting in good faith in feeling that their amendments will improve the Bill. However, the suspicion—which is perfectly natural; I would never attack an Opposition for being suspicious of a Government's motives—with which he has viewed what the Government are doing, as well as his initial confidence in the drafting of the Opposition amendments, is misplaced.
I do not deride the hon. Gentleman for that. We have all had experience in the House of tabling an amendment, feeling confident that it was impeccably drafted and that we had foreseen all its implications, only to discover on wiser advice that that was not quite the case. We are all trying to get to the right outcome. That is a good basis on which to begin the debate.
The amendment of the hon. Member for West Dorset is intended—his remarks confirmed it—to ensure that, after the passage of the Bill, those who lose their right to sit in the House of Lords have equal treatment with other citizens. The amendment also explores the Government's intention and seeks to put that intention, as he understood it, correctly in the Bill.
I have no quarrel with the intention that lies behind the amendment—that the House should clearly understand what the Government are seeking to do. As I say, we all know that it is not easy to draft amendments that have

exactly the effect that one desires, but I hope that I can reassure Conservative Members that the Government are genuinely seeking to do what those Members want, and that the Opposition could even withdraw their amendments.
The underlying aim of the method that the Government have chosen to give hereditary peers the same voting rights as any other citizen is to maintain the maximum amount of flexibility. That is so that nothing in the Bill inadvertently delays or impedes the granting of those rights. The last thing that the Government want is that, by trying to draft the legislation in just the right way and by placing everything in the Bill, we hold up people's right to vote or, indeed, to be candidates for election to this place. No one on either side of the Committee wishes that to happen.
Hon. Members have put great stress on amendment No. 22. It would give someone the right to be added to the electoral register. The first part of the amendment would add hereditary peers, deprived of the right to sit in the House of Lords, to, for example, the register that would run, if the Bill were to be passed at the end of the Session, from now until February 2000. It would not add them to any subsequent register. I presume that that is the aim of the second part of the amendment. That, unfortunately, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) wisely observed, has the inadvertent effect of also enfranchising an hereditary peer who would normally be barred on other grounds of a general application, such as age, incapacity or imprisonment or being a life peer.
It is to avoid listing grounds for disqualification and all the other territory that would be involved in getting the proposal exactly right that the Government took the path that is reflected in clause 2. I say openly to Opposition Members that we considered putting something like the amendment in the Bill. It was only the process of exploring the necessary detail so that we could be absolutely confident of getting the procedure right that persuaded the Government that it might be wiser to take the course that we are now pursuing.
Amendment No. 32 paves the way for amendment No. 33, which I fear is also defective. The power that it cites relates to clause 2, but it is not a power to give effect to the clause. I am advised that, in consequence, it would be an impediment to implementing the clause, which I am sure was not intended.
Amendment No. 34 raises the separate issue of European elections. I think that the hon. Member for West Dorset was slightly suspicious because he could not immediately see any reason why a reference to the European Parliament should be needed. He said correctly that, at present, hereditary peers have a right to vote in European elections because their disqualification relates only to voting for the Westminster Parliament, of which at present they are Members in perpetuity. It rests on that basis.
However, the reference to the European Parliament in clause 4 is intended to assist those hereditary peers who are resident overseas and to put them on exactly the same basis as any other citizens who are resident overseas, who enjoy rights to vote in European parliamentary elections on the basis of their right to vote in Westminster elections. It would be possible to address the issue by other means, but that would be more administratively tedious. It would


duplicate another procedure and cause greater difficulties for the group involved. I repeat, we are anxious to ensure that everyone who ceases to sit as an hereditary peer has the same rights as any other citizen who is in the same circumstances. As it happens, the amendment would prevent a simple method of securing equal treatment from being implemented.
Finally, we come to amendment No. 7. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) correctly says that the amendment does not propose to change the Government's procedures as identified, but proposes an affirmative rather than a negative procedure in respect of the power to make the necessary provisions. Again, that is not the end of the world.
The Government have gone for the negative procedure to be helpful. We wish to provide maximum flexibility to give effect to these rights at the earliest possible date after Royal Assent. Hon. Members will be aware that the affirmative procedure requires an instrument to be laid while the House of Commons is sitting. None of us can predict precisely the circumstances in which all this procedure may come into effect. For example, so as to include hereditary peers in a register being prepared in, say, November, it might be to the benefit of sensible administrative practice and to the individuals involved for such an order to be made between the end of one Session and the beginning of another. That might get individuals on to the electoral register in the simplest and speediest way, in a way that might not be possible if the House of Commons happened not to be sitting.
The Government's overall approach has been taken in a wish genuinely to be helpful. This is all on the record so that right hon. and hon. Members can turn to it should they in any way be concerned that things are not working out as we hope they will. However, the power is tightly defined. There are only a limited number of ways in which it can be exercised. The fact that we are talking of a transitional power might have been overlooked. Although I understand, of course, all the anxieties about Henry VIII powers, attacks on those powers are usually based on the fear that rights will be taken away. In this case, we are proposing a transitional power which will not remove, but add to, people's rights.
The power has been described in the debate as completely open-ended, but it is not. It is a transitional power to deal with a transitional situation. I say, with great respect, that our short debate, to which hon. Members have brought ingenuity and skill, has admirably illustrated the nature and scale of the problems with which the Government were trying to deal—by retaining maximum flexibility in dealing with the matter in secondary legislation.
I assure the Committee that the only reason for the proposals and for the way in which they have been made is to create the maximum opportunity to deal with the proper concern that no one who might be removed from the House of Lords should lack the normal right of any citizen to participate in elections to this place or, should they wish to stand for election to this place, be excluded from doing so for any longer than absolutely necessary.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady made a conciliatory speech, and said that she appreciated the

sincerity, good faith and all the rest of it that lay behind the amendments. Although we are grateful for that, her argument did not sway us. It was not a powerful argument. We are considering a Bill that is paving the way for major constitutional change. There is no guarantee of how long the new House will last, or of whether it will become a permanent House or a semi-permanent House or be swept away within a year or two; we do not know. I shall not and I cannot—as I would be ruled out of order—seek to rehearse those arguments again in the debate on this group of amendments.
We are considering a major constitutional change, and the Government are taking draconian powers to themselves. I should have thought that the right hon. Lady would instinctively be against Henry VIII clauses. It is really not the way to legislate. The Government are taking more power for the Executive, and taking power away from the House.
I held out to the right hon. Lady the olive branch of amendment No. 7. I asked her whether, if the Government could not accept amendment No. 22, which we wanted them to accept, they could at least accept amendment No. 7. Had they done so, as an earnest of their good faith, we should have been moderately content. We would at least have been encouraged and have felt that they were moving in the right direction.

Mrs. Beckett: I tell the hon. Gentleman, very gently, that I realise that he is making a point of principle. However, we are seeking to enfranchise people—most whom will be Conservative supporters—at the earliest possible date. If he were fortunate in persuading the Committee to support the amendment, it is not the Government who would lose out.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It is not only the road to hell that is paved with good intentions. Although I accept, again for the purpose of this argument, the Government's good intentions, I believe that good intentions do not justify bad practice. The Opposition believe that Henry VIII clauses are bad legislative practice and should be resisted whenever they are inserted in legislation. We believe that it is wrong that there should be so much secondary legislation. We believe that it is wrong that so many things should be subject to negative rather than affirmative resolution.
For all those reasons, although I accept the right hon. Lady's good intentions, I urge the Committee to resist the Government's bad practice and to vote for the amendments.

Mr. Swayne: The right hon. Lady's remarks were deeply depressing, not least because she is the Leader of the whole House. Hon. Members complain continually that the Press Gallery is empty and that the House is held largely in contempt by much of the population. The reason is that the House has given away to the Executive many of its powers to make law. What is said and done in the Chamber is of little importance. It is deeply regrettable that the deluge of secondary legislation, which is swamping our body politic, should be extended to the making of our constitution.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 315.

Division No. 86]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Amess, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lansley, Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Leigh, Edward


Baldry, Tony
Letwin, Oliver


Beggs, Roy
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bercow, John
Lidington, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Boswell, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brady, Graham
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Malins, Humfrey


Butterfill, John
Maples, John


Cash, William
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
May, Mrs Theresa



Moss, Malcolm


Chope, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Clappison, James
Norman, Archie


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Pickles, Eric


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Duncan, Alan
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ruffley, David


Evans, Nigel
St Aubyn, Nick


Fabricant, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fallon, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Flight, Howard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spring, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fraser, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Streeter, Gary


Garnier, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Gibb, Nick
Syms, Robert


Gill, Christopher
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gray, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Townend, John


Greenway, John
Tredinnick, David


Grieve, Dominic
Tyrie, Andrew


Hague, Rt Hon William
Walter, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Wardle, Charles


Hammond, Philip
Waterson, Nigel


Hawkins, Nick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Heald, Oliver
Whittingdale, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wilkinson, John


Horam, John
Willetts, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Woodward, Shaun


Hunter, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jack, Rt Hon Michael



Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tellers for the Ayes: Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Sir David Madel.


Jenkin, Bernard



Key, Robert



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Atkins, Charlotte


Ainger, Nick
Austin, John


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Harry


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Barron, Kevin


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Battle, John


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bayley, Hugh



Beard, Nigel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Ennis, Jeff


Begg, Miss Anne
Fisher, Mark


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flint, Caroline


Bennett, Andrew F
Flynn, Paul


Benton, Joe
Follett, Barbara


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Best, Harold
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foulkes, George


Blizzard, Bob
Galloway, George


Boateng, Paul
Gapes, Mike


Borrow, David
Gardiner, Barry


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gerrard, Neil


Bradshaw, Ben
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brake, Tom
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Brand, Dr Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Goggins, Paul


Browne, Desmond
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burden, Richard
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burnett, John
Grocott, Bruce


Butler, Mrs Christine
Grogan, John


Caborn, Richard
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caplin, Ivor
Hanson, David


Casale, Roger
Harris, Dr Evan


Caton, Martin
Harvey, Nick


Cawsey, Ian
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Chidgey, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hesford, Stephen


Clapham, Michael
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clelland, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Coleman, Iain
Humble, Mrs Joan


Connarty, Michael
Hurst, Alan


Cooper, Yvette
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cotter, Brian
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cousins, Jim
Jenkins, Brian


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Crausby, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)



Cummings, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kidney, David


Dawson, Hilton
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dean, Mrs Janet
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dismore, Andrew
Kirkwood, Archy


Donohoe, Brian H
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Doran, Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dowd, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Drown, Ms Julia
Laxton, Bob


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lepper, David


Edwards, Huw
Leslie, Christopher


Efford, Clive
Levitt, Tom






Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rendel, David


Linton, Martin
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Livingstone, Ken



Livsey, Richard
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rogers, Allan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooney, Terry


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruane, Chris


McCabe, Steve
Ruddock, Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salter, Martin


McDonnell, John
Sanders, Adrian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Savidge, Malcolm


McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


MacShane, Denis
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Singh, Marsha


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moore, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mountford, Kali
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mudie, George
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stringer, Graham


Oaten, Mark
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Temple-Morris, Peter


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pendry, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Touhig, Don


Pike, Peter L
Trickett, Jon


Plaskitt, James
Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wallace, James


Primarolo, Dawn
Walley, Ms Joan


Prosser, Gwyn
Wareing, Robert N


Purchase, Ken
Watts, David


Quinn, Lawrie
Welsh, Andrew


Radice, Giles
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rammell, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Raynsford, Nick



Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Willis, Phil
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wills, Michael



Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Mike
Mr. David Jamieson and


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

INTERPRETATION AND SHORT TITLE

Sir Patrick Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 2, line 4, after 'peerage', insert—
'means members of the peerages of Scotland, England, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom other than those created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 or the Life Peerages Act 1958, and '.
The amendment is simple and clear. We tabled it for one reason only: in the Bill, the whole aim of which is to remove the voting and sitting rights of hereditary peers, there is no adequate definition of what an hereditary peer is. In their desire to produce the shortest Bill possible, the Government have cut every corner in sight. I hope that they will be able to accept the amendment without hesitation, to allow the Committee to move on to the more substantive new clauses. If there is some technical deficiency, I hope that the Minister will point it out and promise to remedy it and table a Government amendment. It is nonsense that in a Bill dealing with the hereditary peerage there should be no adequate definition of that phrase.

Mr. Forth: On reading the amendment and the Peerage Act 1963, the question arises my mind whether reference should be made in the Bill to peeresses in their own right, as in that Act, which takes care to make reference also to Scottish and Irish peerages, and whether there might be a problem if no such reference is made. We have to be careful to cover all the possibilities.
When I take visitors into the Lobby of the Lords, I always draw attention to the quaint notice that goes through all the categories of peers, mentioning peeresses in their own right. That important category should not be excluded.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Surely the word "hereditary" means any title inherited, whether the inheritor is male or female.

Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I am almost reassured by what he says. I will be fully reassured when the Minister tells me that my anxiety is completely unfounded.

Mr. Hoon: Notwithstanding the eloquence of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I shall have to disappoint him yet again.
There is no doubt what is meant by the phrase "hereditary peerage". We do not anticipate that it will lead to legal proceedings, challenging what is perfectly straightforward English, and there is no need for any further definition. There is no ambiguity. The problem


with the amendment, certainly as drafted, is that it attempts to define hereditary peerage negatively, by reference to what it is not, and that is no greater help to a precise definition than what is contained in the Bill. The Bill has the merit of being in plain English. It is clear to everyone what is meant by hereditary peerage and to introduce such an amendment would produce the ambiguity and difficulty that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to avoid.

Mr. Grieve: I seek clarification on the position of that small category, hereditary peers of the first creation who hold peerages that may pass down by right of heredity. What is their precise status? They are peers, not by hereditary right but through having been created peers themselves. It is only for their successors that the hereditary right exists. How does that square with the definition of hereditary peers in the Bill?

Mr. Hoon: It is not necessary to go into the definition to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, because those peers are clearly hereditary peers. The peers of first creation have been told that they will have the opportunity, should they be interested, in taking a life peerage to put them into the same position as other members of the life peerage with the ability to participate in proceedings in the other place. That is an elegant solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman raises.
I was about to say that I recommend to the Committee that it reject the amendment.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We are not absolutely persuaded by the Minister's reply, but the Committee has other business to move to. In the light of the Minister's reply, we shall have further discussions and a similar amendment may be tabled in the other place. However, for the purposes of this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 9

SENIOR SALARIES REVIEW BOARD

'(1) The Secretary of State shall ask the Senior Salaries Review Board:

(a) to review the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords; and
(b) to detail the costs of their recommendations.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the final report of the Senior Salaries Review Board before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in title, line 2, after 'about', insert
'the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords and'.

Mr. Evans: I am delighted to move new clause 9, although I fear not as eloquently as my hon. Friend the

Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would. I shall give it my best shot. The new clause deals with pay and salaries, which are a vital issue. We have in mind the interim House of Lords and, dare I say it, the second stage, should it ever materialise—perhaps in my dreams rather than in reality. Even if we do not get to stage 2, we should consider how we treat those who will sit in the transitional House, what sort of work we need them to do and whether we intend to give them the full support that they need. It is not worth while delaying this discussion until we get to stage 2.
The debate is long overdue. We have only to consider the work of those who sit in the House of Lords to appreciate the conditions under which they work and the pay—I use the term loosely—that many of them receive. Much has been said about the peers, especially the hereditary peers, in Committee and during the debates we had on the White Paper. I exclude the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office from this accusation, but other hon. Members have been rather dismissive of the contribution of the hereditary peers. It is a shame that some of them, especially the newer Members, have not taken the opportunity to go down the Corridor and listened to some of the debates in the second Chamber. Most people who know anything about the House of Lords speak highly of the debates held there and the high level of contributions made by many peers who are expert in their fields. We should be grateful for the service that both hereditary and life peers have given over many years, not only in the Chamber, but in the Select Committees.
I went to the other place briefly today where I spoke to one peer about the conditions in which they work. Seven peers were crammed into the same room, and I asked whether each of them had a desk. He chuckled, and said that when they were elevated to the peerage they could put down their names for a locker. Many peers are still on the waiting list even for a locker, never mind a desk or the use of a lap top computer, although some of them do use those. The conditions in which they work are extremely primitive, and we should reconsider them, irrespective of any changes that take place.
To see the value of the House of Lords, we need only consider its cost in comparison with the cost of the House of Commons and the European Parliament. Research shows that the House of Lords costs £39 million, and the cost per member is £37,000. For the House of Commons, the cost is £241 million, which is £366,000 for each Member. The European Parliament—a great institution that stands alongside the Millennium dome in my mind—costs £607 million, which makes £948,000 a Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap at the price."] I am not sure whether the MEPs get it all themselves, although I suspect that somehow or other they do.
Those figures prove the great value that we get from the House of Lords. We get it on the cheap, but we should not do so.

Dr. George Turner: Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on how recently the conditions have become so dreadful in the other place? Why is there a sudden urgency for improvement that did not exist for a long period—18 years, perhaps? Is it just coincidence that the matter is being debated now, or has something happened since this Parliament began to change conditions there?

Mr. Evans: It was never a priority for the previous Government, and I should apologise for the fact that we


did not get round to change during the 18 years of Conservative Government or the five years during which I was a Member under that Government. During those five years, I would rather have considered the salary and conditions of the House of Lords than many of the pieces of legislation that were debated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name one."] Do not tempt me.
It is appropriate to bring pay and conditions up to date while we are discussing the House of Lords Bill. No one can dispute the fact that we cannot carry on expecting the other place to do an increasing amount of work in the new quangocracy in the reconstructed transitional House—and in the second stage—without paying its Members sufficiently well to do their work.

Mr. Bermingham: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the second Chamber should become a Chamber in which Members attend every day rather than leaving the atmosphere of the second Chamber as it is at present? The House of Lords currently collects the talents of many people whose feet are in the real worlds of industry, trade unions and so on in which they receive adequate compensation as directors, judges and goodness knows what else.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have people of all the talents in the second Chamber, which is different from the method by which we get people into this Chamber. We are denuded here of expertise over a wide field: an examination of the professions of Members of the House of Commons suggests that we have narrowed ourselves to certain professions, perhaps including the profession represented by the hon. Gentleman, which is over-represented compared with the representation of other professions.
Continuing a second Chamber on a shoe string will restrict membership to a narrow band of people. If we want a wide range of people, we must ensure that they have full support. I do not know whether the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) realises that ordinary Members—I am not talking about the Lord Chancellor—who are not on £150,000 a year get £78 for accommodation if they do not live in London. They get £34.50 for subsistence and £33.50 a day for secretarial assistance. That does not add up to an awful lot of money. If the hon. Gentleman wants the fresh blood that is desperately needed, he cannot expect them to carry on like that.

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman forgets the reality of the other place, which contains many people with pensions or secondary incomes—often tertiary incomes. Many are still active in commerce, the law and many other professions. That is why Prime Ministers have been able to appoint such a wide diversity of people, far wider than the diversity here. I recognise that in the 18th or 19th century, this place was talked of as a place of shopkeepers. Perhaps he may know something about that.

Mr. Evans: There was a time when Members of Parliament were not paid. They had to be drawn from

people of a certain background: those who could afford it. We have rightly changed that. We should pay regard to the people in the other place who do not have private incomes and who devote themselves to the second Chamber.
I have visited the Lords regularly over the past few weeks and it is far more packed with peers listening to and taking part in the debate than ever this Chamber is. This is one of the busiest days that I have seen for a long time; I suspect that hon. Members knew that I would speak. Everyone accepts that current pay and allowances cannot continue. Members of the Lords get an attendance allowance. If they do not attend the Chamber, they do not get paid.
What sort of Chamber do we want in the interim and second stages? The House of Lords spends 58 per cent. of its time revising legislation, and 38 per cent. of that is scrutiny. The 2,000 amendments a year that go through the other place, and its scrutiny of European Union documents, have been mentioned before. It may not be well known that 1,200 documents are placed in the Lords, a third of which are referred to Sub-Committees for detailed scrutiny. The European Communities Committee is divided into six Sub-Committees. Much scrutiny is rightly given to such EU documents.
It is not only a question of the business that we do here. We know about the debates that take place in the other place. It is not only the European committees and other Select Committees such as the Science and Technology Committee. There is other vital scrutiny in the debates of the House of Lords. If we want to continue that in the transitional Chamber and in the second stage, we must ensure that its Members get the proper pay and conditions. That must include secretarial assistance, because £33.50 for a secretary is outrageous. How can we expect anyone to pay such money when we are talking about the minimum wage?

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: You did not support the minimum wage.

Mr. Evans: That is even below the minimum wage.
It is not appreciated that most peers do not even get free postage.

Mr. Hoon: They have no constituents.

Mr. Evans: The Minister must appreciate that for many peers, the United Kingdom is their constituency. People who hear peers taking part in our legislation write to them. They expect replies, and we do not assist them with their postage.
The Lord Chancellor is on £150,000 a year, and he had to put through his House of Lords postage using his ministerial rank to invite people to the Groucho club for a private function. If he, on £150,000, cannot afford the postage, how do we expect ordinary Back-Bench Members of the House of Lords to pay it?
There is a serious point in all this. We need to have a look at what is going to happen. When the hereditary peers go, we will expect the life peers to take up that work. If they do not, the work simply will not get done. We need to attract people to attend more regularly. I know that the Prime Minister has talked about expanding the number of life peers. I hope that a great number of them


will be Cross-Benchers. We have to make membership of the House of Lords sufficiently attractive to get people to go there.
Surely we want a second Chamber that will be effective. The White Paper says that the functions of the transitional second Chamber will not be changed. I hope that the Government are not saying as a threat that, unless the House of Lords behaves and is compliant, in stage 2 the Chamber will be denuded of its functions. Surely, in this day and age, when a lot more power has drifted over many years to the Executive, Back-Bench Members from all parties, including the Labour party, want to bring the Executive to account as much as we possibly can and to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised by the other place. For that to happen, there must be sufficient Members of the second Chamber who have proper salaries and allowances to pay staff so that they can do an effective job.
When the Minister responds to the debate—whether it is tonight or tomorrow—please will he at least give an assurance that the Government will not kick this into the long grass until they consider stage 2? It is a problem that will exist in the transitional House and it needs to be sorted out now to ensure that we have an effective second Chamber, for however long it exists.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall cut out the hon. Gentleman's speech and use it on all those occasions when Conservative councillors attack councillors of other parties for daring to pay for any research or secretarial assistance out of the funds of local authorities that dispose of extremely large budgets. This is an amazing amendment from an amazing source. It is premature to set up a salary system for the interim House. It has, if not an indeterminate membership, a large membership ranging widely between those whom the hon. Gentleman has fairly said do a great deal of work—virtually a full-time or more than full-time job—and those whose attendance is more occasional, or regular, but of limited span each day.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: No, I intend to be very brief. It is a very wide-ranging House and certainly not one to which we could simply apply a salary system. We will have to consider salaries when we create a second Chamber of determinate size. We need to consider a salary system in that context, not as a mechanism for a temporary Chamber which has much of the character of the existing second Chamber, but will simply have the hereditary peers removed from it.

Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point. I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) covered it too adequately. It relates to inter-related issues that should be dealt with. In fairness to my hon. Friend, his amendment would allow it to be dealt with, but perhaps not necessarily in the way that he outlined. The new clause makes provision for
the Senior Salaries Review Board … to review the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords",
which must be desirable.
I assume that the House of Lords, as it would be were the Bill to become an Act—the interim House, which would contain either no hereditary element, or that hereditary element about which we are not allowed to speak and about which we do not know—would still consist of about 500 Members. So far, so good. However, I also assume—I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley will intervene to clarify this point—that whether or not we are talking about that new House of Lords performing a role similar to that of the existing House of Lords, based on a combination of either—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: Certainly.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are dealing with the House of Lords minus the hereditary peers? The word "interim" does not appear in the Bill at all. Therefore, we are considering a House of Lords that will have substantially fewer Members, because 40 per cent. of those who regularly attend now will no longer be there; consequently, the work load on those who do attend will be enormously greater. That is the reason for tabling the new clause, which was moved so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I am sure that my right hon. Friend will concede that that is a point of immediate importance.

Mr. Forth: Yes, of course I accept that. However, it gives rise to several consequential questions which it is important that we recognise at this stage. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley envisage that the Members of that altered upper Chamber will be expected to be full-time rather than part-time? Will the moneys that might be paid to them be based on attendance, or on a contribution beyond mere attendance? I think that we will come later to an amendment that touches on that question, so I do not want to go into it at this stage.
These are important matters, because we are now beginning to explore how we envisage that the upper House will change in nature or in activity following the removal of some of its most dedicated and active Members. The key question is whether we can believe, or reasonably expect, that with a dramatically reduced number of Members of the sort who have made such a contribution in the past there will still be the sort of quality of scrutiny, debate and deliberation in the upper House that many of us have come to take for granted.

Mr. Evans: The intention behind the new clause is to enable the SSRB to consider the sort of work that the upper House will do. In this House, those who sit on Select Committees do more work than some hon. Members who do not. It would be up to the SSRB to consider the work of the Members of the House of Lords and to make its recommendations accordingly.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
I believe that my hon. Friend has, rather uncharacteristically, made an omission in his new clause;


however, he referred to it in his speech, which makes me doubly curious. It relates to the matter of accommodation. The accommodation available to Members of the other place is not only inadequate, but effectively non-existent. I remember from the time I arrived here in the early 1980s the complaints made about the inadequacy of accommodation for Members of this place, but Members of the other place have far greater reason to complain. So would it not make the new clause more complete, more relevant and more effective if it contained reference to the question of accommodation and asked that the SSRB should consider the matter and assess the extent to which the availability of accommodation was a material element in the ability of the upper House effectively to discharge its responsibility in the way that we expect?
Just as it is legitimate for us to consider whether we want full-time or part-time Members, we should consider whether payment or reward should be based on contribution or attendance, and whether it will be necessary to persuade—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 11.

Division No. 87]
[10.1 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benton, Joe


Allan, Richard
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Best, Harold


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blizzard, Bob


Atkins, Charlotte
Boateng, Paul


Austin, John
Borrow, David


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barron, Kevin
Bradshaw, Ben


Battle, John
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bayley, Hugh
Browne, Desmond


Beard, Nigel
Burden, Richard


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Burgon, Colin


Begg, Miss Anne
Burnett, John


Beggs, Roy
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cable, Dr Vincent



Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grogan, John


Caplin, Ivor
Gunnell, John


Casale, Roger
Hain, Peter


Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chaytor, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chidgey, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harris, Dr Evan


Clapham, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hesford, Stephen



Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Coaker, Vernon
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Coleman, Iain
Hopkins, Kelvin


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hurst, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cranston, Ross
Illsley, Eric


Crausby, David
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dalyell, Tam



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dawson, Hilton
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dismore, Andrew
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kidney, David


Doran, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Drew, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Drown, Ms Julia
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Ennis, Jeff
Leslie, Christopher


Fearn, Ronnie
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Linton, Martin


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Livingstone, Ken


Flint, Caroline
Livsey, Richard


Flynn, Paul
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Follett, Barbara
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lock, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Love, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCabe, Steve


Galloway, George
McCafferty, Ms Chris



McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gardiner, Barry
McDonnell, John


Gerrard, Neil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Goggins, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona






Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shaw, Jonathan


Mallaber, Judy
Sheerman, Barry


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Maxton, John



Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meale, Alan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Moore, Michael
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stevenson, George


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mudie, George
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mullin, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stott, Roger


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Oaten, Mark
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Olner, Bill
(Dewsbury)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pearson, Ian
Temple-—Morris, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Tipping, Paddy


Plaskitt, James
Touhig, Don


Pollard, Kerry
Trickett, Jon


Pond, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Primarolo, Dawn
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prosser, Gwyn
Tyler, Paul


Purchase, Ken
Wallace, James


Quinn, Lawrie
Walley, Ms Joan


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert N


Rammell, Bill
Watts, David


Rapson, Syd
Webb, Steve


Raynsford, Nick
Welsh, Andrew


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
White, Brian


Rendel, David
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Willis, Phil


Rowlands, Ted
Wills, Michael


Ruane, Chris
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wood, Mike


Ryan, Ms Joan
Woolas, Phil


Salter, Martin
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sanders, Adrian



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sawford, Phil
Mr. David Jamieson and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. David Hanson.


NOES


Bercow, John
Grieve, Dominic


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Fabricant, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard



Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Randall, John
Mr. Desmond Swayne and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 11.

Division No. 88]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Connarty, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Cooper, Yvette


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbett, Robin


Allan, Richard
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corston, Ms Jean


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cranston, Ross


Atkins, Charlotte
Crausby, David


Austin, John
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bayley, Hugh
Dalyell, Tarn


Beard, Nigel
Darvill, Keith


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Bermingham, Gerald
Dean, Mrs Janet


Best, Harold
Dismore, Andrew


Blackman, Liz
Donohoe, Brian H


Blears, Ms Hazel
Doran, Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Drew, David


Borrow, David
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burden, Richard
Ennis, Jeff


Burgon, Colin
Fearn, Ronnie


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flynn, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Follett, Barbara


Casale, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caton, Martin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chidgey, David
Foulkes, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Goggins, Paul


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coaker, Vernon
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coleman, Iain
Grocott, Bruce






Grogan, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gunnell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Martlew, Eric


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maxton, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Harris, Dr Evan
Meale, Alan


Harvey, Nick
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Healey, John
Miller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hesford, Stephen
Moore, Michael


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hinchliffe, David
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mountford, Kali


Hope, Phil
Mudie, George


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
Oaten, Mark


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Illsley, Eric
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Öpik, Lembit


Jenkins, Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pope, Greg


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Radice, Giles


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rammell, Bill


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rapson, Syd


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Raynsford, Nick


Laxton, Bob
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lepper, David
Rendel, David


Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Linton, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Ruane, Chris


Livsey, Richard
Ruddock, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Sanders, Adrian


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Shaw, Jonathan


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Shipley, Ms Debra


McDonnell, John
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McIsaac, Shona
Singh, Marsha


Mackinlay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mactaggart, Fiona



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)





Snape, Peter
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Soley, Clive
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tyler, Paul


Steinberg, Gerry
Wallace, James


Stevenson, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Watts, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
Webb, Steve


Stott, Roger
Welsh, Andrew


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
White, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stringer, Graham
Wicks, Malcolm


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)




Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Willis, Phil


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wills, Michael


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winnick, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woolas, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon
Tellers for the Ayes:


Truswell, Paul
Mr. David Jamieson and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. David Hanson.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Randall, John


Bercow, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fabricant, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jenkin, Bernard
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Scottish Parliament (First Ordinary General Election and First Meeting) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 40.

Division No. 89]
[10.24 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Begg, Miss Anne


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bennett, Andrew F


Atkins, Charlotte
Benton, Joe


Austin, John
Bermingham, Gerald


Barnes, Harry
Best, Harold






Blackman, Liz
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Blears, Ms Hazel
Godman, Dr Norman A


Blizzard, Bob
Goggins, Paul


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Borrow, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradshaw, Ben
Grogan, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gunnell, John


Browne, Desmond
Hain, Peter


Burden, Richard
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Burgon, Colin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Healey, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hepburn, Stephen


Caplin, Ivor
Hesford, Stephen


Casale, Roger
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Caton, Martin
Hill, Keith


Cawsey, Ian
Hinchliffe, David


Chaytor, David
Hoey, Kate


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clapham, Michael
Hope, Phil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Coaker, Vernon
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Coleman, Iain
Jenkins, Brian


Connarty, Michael
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corbyn, Jeremy



Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cousins, Jim (Wolverh'ton SW)
Jones, Ms Jenny


Cranston, Ross



Crausby, David
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cummings, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dalyell, Tam
Kidney, David


Darvill, Keith
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davidson, Ian
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Laxton, Bob


Dawson, Hilton
Lepper, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Leslie, Christopher


Dismore, Andrew
Levitt, Tom


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Doran, Frank
Linton, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Drew, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lock, David


Edwards, Huw
Love, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McAvoy, Thomas


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McCabe, Steve


Ennis, Jeff
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fisher, Mark
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McDonnell, John


Flint, Caroline
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Flynn, Paul
McIsaac, Shona


Follett, Barbara
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McNulty, Tony


Galloway, George
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gapes, Mike
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gardiner, Barry
Mallaber, Judy


Gerrard, Neil
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)





Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Meale, Alan



Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mountford, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Hara, Eddie
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pike Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) 


Pollard, Kerry
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Touhig, Don


Pope, Greg
Trickett, Jon


Powell, Sir Raymond
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) 


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) 


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) 


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Derek (Halton) 


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) W



Walley, Ms Joan


Quinn, Lawrie
Wareing, Robert N


Radice, Giles
Watts, David


Rammell, Bill
Welsh, Andrew


Rapson, Syd
White, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wicks, Malcolm


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Wills, Michael


Ruane, Chris
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Savidge, Malcolm
Woolas, Phil


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. David Jamieson and


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. David Hanson.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Amess, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Beggs, Roy
Jenkin, Bernard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Bercow, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Burnett, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Chidgey, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Livsey, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fearn, Ronnie
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
Moore, Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Oaten, Mark


Harris, Dr Evan
Öpik, Lembit


Harvey, Nick
Randall, John






Rendel, David
Tyler, Paul


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Wallace, James


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Webb, Steve


Sanders, Adrian
Willis, Phil


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Swayne, Desmond
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Eric Forth and


Townend, John
Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill]

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

Cystic Fibrosis

Mrs. Louise Ellman: I am presenting this petition on behalf of the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust and its supporters, who request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to introduce legislation to exempt all adults with cystic fibrosis from prescription charges. The supporters point out that the cost of introducing the proposal would be minimal—less than £100,000 a year. The petition has been signed by 4,500 people.
The petition
Declares that people with cystic fibrosis have a chronic medical condition that requires continuous essential medication. It is estimated that the cost of giving free prescriptions to those adults with cystic fibrosis who are currently not so entitled would be minimal, at less than £100,000 per year.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to introduce legislation to exempt all adults with cystic fibrosis from prescription charges.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Spaceguard Project

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I have a big problem with asteroids—

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): What?

Mr. Öpik: Asteroids. And so has the rest of the human race. Unless we do something to stop it, sooner or later an impact with an asteroid or a comet will lead to the end of most life on Earth.
My grandfather, Ernst Julius Öpik, was a professional astronomer in Estonia and then at the Armagh observatory in Northern Ireland. He specialised in comet and meteorite impacts on other bodies. His work led to an asteroid being named after him by the astronomer Eleanor Helin. I guess that I may have to move to Öpik's asteroid out in space one day if I lose Montgomeryshire for the Liberal Democrats.
Last year, when NASA stated that an asteroid was coming towards the Earth, I mentioned to a journalist that I hoped that it was not Öpik's asteroid, prompting him to write an article with the headline "MP to Blame for the End of the World". He at least saw the serious side of the debate.
The impact hazard comes from so-called Earth-crossers. They intersect the Earth's orbit. If we wait long enough, one will certainly hit us. Earth-crossers are leftovers from the early days of the solar system. Think of the solar system as a cosmic building site. When God made the planets, he had a lot of bits left over. When he had finished, he did not sweep them up. They range in size from dust particles to objects hundreds of miles across. They float about in space between the planets, sometimes crashing into them.
Small crashes happen all the time. Rocks that burn up in the atmosphere without hitting the ground are called meteors or shooting stars. Every shooting star is a tiny bit of space dirt, just a few millimetres or centimetres across, which ends its life in a bright streak as it evaporates in the Earth's atmosphere. For a dust particle, I guess that that is a pretty cool way to go.
Bigger crashes are not as common. Objects that reach ground level are called meteorites. They range in size from a few kilogrammes to much bigger objects. On 9 October 1992, a 12 kg meteorite fell in Peekskill, New York, punching a hole in the rear end of a car parked in a driveway and coming to rest in a shallow depression beneath it. It went all the way through the car and on to the road. I would love to have seen the driver's insurance claim. Apparently, she sold the car to a museum for a handsome profit.
Even bigger crashes are less common, but far more explosive. On the evening of 30 June 1908, a small comet-like object exploded in the atmosphere above the Tunguska river valley in Siberia. It had the explosive power of 10 million tonnes of TNT. It flattened trees for 20 km in all directions and killed hundreds of reindeer. If the Tunguska object had entered the atmosphere over Westminster, everything within the M25 would have been destroyed.
We can expect two or three such objects to collide with the Earth every century, but it gets really scary when the objects are 500 m in diameter or bigger. An object 1 km wide hitting land would destroy an area the size of Germany, raise enough dust to affect the climate, destroy the ozone layer and freeze crops owing to the darkness of what we often call a nuclear winter. For various reasons, an ocean impact would be even worse: it would create tidal waves called tsunamis on a hemispheric scale, and would kill a large proportion of more complex life forms—including us.
The explosive effect of an object 1 km wide is about 100,000 million tonnes of TNT. Anything larger than that—wider than 1 or 2 km—is called a global killer. That means that the impact of a 10 km object would wipe out seven of every 10 life forms on Earth. Devastation on such a level is almost beyond comprehension, but we know that it has happened before, and it will definitely happen again.
How big is the risk? There is plenty of evidence on our doorstep that this is not millennium madness. Every year, about 50,000 tonnes of space rock hit the Earth. In the half-hour of this debate, more than 2.5 tonnes will descend on us from space. The big ones are hanging out there, of course, but most of that is made up of specks of dust and small meteorites.
In 1930, three meteorites landed in Brazil, causing shock waves which could be felt in La Paz, Bolivia. At midnight on 10 August last year, we nearly lost the cosmic lottery: an asteroid 1.6 km wide passed within six hours of the Earth. In space terms, that is very close. It equates to the Leader of the Opposition standing at the Dispatch Box, throwing a marble at the Prime Minister in a fit of pique, and missing his head by 2 mm. That is a sobering thought.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: He would have lost his marbles.

Mr. Öpik: I think it unnecessary to point out that, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has already lost his marbles.
Had that giant rock hit the Earth, we would not be here to discuss it. A dust cloud would have enveloped the globe for months, and would have stopped photosynthesis. Plants would have died. The shutdown of world agriculture would have certainly put the talks on the common agricultural policy in the shade!
The blast would have been followed by a wave—a tsunami—that would have risen to 4 km in shallow coastal waters. The summit of Ben Nevis would have been more than a mile below water. Much of human achievement would have been lost, and survivors would have been left scavenging for life, every day a dark, cold fight for existence.
The most recent big impact occurred next door. Five years ago, a few visitors dropped in on a neighbour of ours, Jupiter. Fragmented comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 crashed into Jupiter in 20 pieces in one week in July 1994. The impacts produced Earth-sized scars in the Jovian atmosphere. That was an example of what we call "streams"—when a series of objects impact one after the other, in quick succession. With an expectation of one such impact every 1,000 to 2,000 years, the Jovians might have taken a relaxed view of the chance of being hit more

than once. In fact, they were hit 20 times in one week. That was bad luck for the Jovians, but a good lesson for us. Of course, no one actually lives on Jupiter, but a lot of people live on Earth.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: By courtesy of the British Geological Survey, I had the good fortune to have dinner, after a lecture that he had given, with the late Eugene Shoemaker, who died tragically in Australia. His considered opinion was that the position merited some action, because it was as dangerous as the hon. Gentleman makes out.

Mr. Öpik: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very interested in the subject. He is right to draw attention to the extraordinary contribution made by Eugene Shoemaker, who, in the last 10 years, created an atmosphere in which the whole question of asteroid and comet impacts could be taken seriously.
Here on Earth, the biggest evidence of global killers comes from 65 million years ago. This is a subject that Eugene Shoemaker often discussed. An asteroid 10 km wide fell on Chicxulub in the Yucatan peninsula, in Mexico. It extinguished about 70 per cent. of life on Earth, and wiped out the dinosaurs. On average, such events are expected to occur every 30 million years or so, but, as with buses, you wait for ages and then 20 come along at once—as the Jovians found out.
There is other evidence. The moon is cratered simply because of such impacts. Interestingly, the moon itself was probably caused by the impact of a Mars-sized object hitting the Earth, with the moon splashing out from our planet about 4,500 million years ago. Our solar system is not peaceful—we are living in a cosmic shooting gallery, where planets and other bodies are still colliding.
When will the next global killer strike the Earth? The next major impact could be 100,000 years away, or it could be two minutes away. Unfortunately, we do not know where all these things are, so we will be caught by surprise if one of the unexpected, untracked and undetected objects comes our way. We could have as little as 20 seconds warning before being incinerated in the catastrophic aftermath of the impact and explosion. That is not enough time even to say the Lord's prayer.

Mr. Sanders: Someone will page us.

Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend is being optimistic if he thinks that he will be paged by our Chief Whip in such an eventuality.
Even though the impact represents the greatest environmental danger there is—far greater than an all-out nuclear war—until recently, the subject has been regarded as a joke. When I originally asked about the threats, we contacted the Ministry of Defence, which said that it was really a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The DETR passed us on to the Home Office, which suggested the Department of Trade and Industry.
In desperation, we asked the Library for advice. Having listened to our asteroid story and heard of the level of devastation that a reasonably large object could cause, there was silence, before the librarian asked whether we had thought about contacting the Archbishop of Canterbury. Impacts are part of science, not religion.


They are a part of cosmic life, as well as ours. The new element is that we homo sapiens are the first species on Earth not only to appreciate the dangers, but to be in a position to do something about them. We have the technology to avert this brand of Armageddon.

Mr. Sanders: Is my hon. Friend familiar with the recent film "Armageddon"? Does he see the solution as being to send Bruce Willis up to the asteroid to drill a big hole and to let off a nuclear weapon which disperses the asteroid? Is that fantasy land, or the kind of preventive measure that we will have to take?

Mr. Öpik: Following their earlier performance, I suggest that we consider asking for volunteers from the official Opposition for that role. However, if the Minister gives an unsatisfactory response, we might ask him to volunteer. The serious point that my hon. Friend makes is right. Although the science, in places, is a bit shaky in "Armageddon", the concept is spot-on.
The impacts are part of science, but they are also part of economics. It is surprising that one is twice as likely to be killed by an asteroid impact as in a plane crash, and it is six times more likely that that would happen than dying by tornado. As for beef on the bone, the chances of dying from food poisoning, including BSE, are one in 3 million—100 times less likely than being killed by an asteroid impact. Unfortunately, we cannot ban asteroids. If we could, it would make a far bigger practical difference to public health than the current ban on beef on the bone. That is food for thought for all of us.
With the odds as they are, by doing nothing about asteroids and comets, we are all taking part in a great cosmic game of roulette. These flying roulette balls have a completely different effect, depending on size. As I have said, the smallest objects are shooting stars, which cause little damage. However, with the 1 km-wide objects, we must do two things—track and divert. We must track them, so we know what is coming towards us, and divert them to avert Armageddon.
We have the technology to track the objects, but we are tracking only about 10 per cent. of them. We cannot save the world if we see these objects too late. Ideally, we want a few years' notice of a potential impact. We could then nudge them into a modified orbit using rockets or nuclear explosions, as in the films "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact", or we could use a more exotic solution involving solar sails. The nudge need only be small because, in cosmic terms, Earth is a small target—it is easier to miss us than to hit us. A little tap to divert the orbit soon enough will mean that life goes on as the rock flies by.
There are about 2,000 near-Earth asteroids and possibly a similar number of extinct comets not yet found and not bright enough to be discovered with existing instruments. Objects less than about 10 km across can be diverted in principle, as long as we have years, or perhaps decades, in which to plan. Larger objects, and even the 1 km long-period comets, are harder to deal with because we have less warning, but they constitute only a small part of the threat, or actuarial risk.
The blockbusters show the way. As the films show, there are a few enlightened people beyond Hollywood who are trying to deal with the problem in a serious

fashion. The Spaceguard Foundation is an international organisation which aims to track all large Earth-threatening objects—all the global killers—and its work could be crucial to our future.
According to NASA, the estimated cost of setting up six telescopes and a global network comes to about £36 million, with roughly £6.25 million a year running costs. That would be spread among various countries, with none paying more than £5 million towards set-up, and perhaps about £500,000 a year running costs. The United Kingdom has important expertise and people who can make a real contribution to the international effort.
Governments internationally should establish formal recognition of Spaceguard and the United Kingdom should establish a national centre to contribute to the international effort. Armagh observatory is a world-renowned centre of excellence, considered one of the best centres of minor planet astronomy anywhere. It is the right place for our Spaceguard centre to be located, and perhaps the Minister will consider visiting it.
To set up the centre and the feasibility study group would cost about £4.56 million over 10 years; that is less than £500,000 a year, and would provide an important first step to the larger project. For comparison, that is less than 2 per cent. of the cost of the millennium dome. McDonald's has given £12 million sponsorship to the dome, which is more than the entire cost of UK participation in Spaceguard over 10 years. That is an amazing statistic.
Impacts of objects of about 1 km across represent a greater cost than £100 million in human life alone. Any insurance company must take seriously the opportunity to detect a danger for £1 million a year to save possibly £99 million a year. It is only because it is unusual to think about the space threat that action has not already been taken.
Diverting the objects that are heading towards us is more expensive, but I have to believe that if we find something coming towards us the human race will be sufficiently focused to work together to divert what would literally be a global catastrophe.
In the past, asteroid impacts have had something of a giggle factor. Those talking about them have been seen as cranks. At last, we have a Minister who takes the issue seriously. He has been well advised by his experts to do so. Some hon. Members may have been laughing about it, but one does not see many dinosaurs laughing about it these days.
One is more likely to die in an asteroid impact than to win the national lottery, unless one does the lottery for 100,000 years, in which case one will probably both win the lottery and die in an asteroid impact, although I suspect that only Glenn Hoddle is in a position to find out.
I ask the Minister not to commit the Government to massive expenditure, but simply to arrange meetings between his Department and experts such as Professor Mark Bailey, who follows my grandfather in being director of Armagh observatory, Major Tate from Spaceguard UK and many other international partners in the field.
I am sure that such meetings will underline the importance of serious UK involvement. This is not idle scaremongering. I do not set myself up as Parliament's Nostradamus any more than I set up the Minister as the


Government's Bruce Willis, set to save the world from global catastrophe; although one never sees the Minister and Bruce Willis in the same room at the same time.
The last time a huge asteroid hit the Earth, it wiped out the dinosaurs. We are next in line for extinction. I am sure that new Labour does not want to be responsible for wiping out humanity and allowing the cockroaches to inherit the Earth. We have come too far to let it all end in a searing moment of heat and light and the long dark winter which would follow.
For once in our history as a species, let us think long term and make a plan to ensure that civilisation can continue to flourish and that life in all its wonderful diverse forms can still inhabit an extraordinary place called Earth.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on raising this subject. I thought his speech was an excellent example of a clear and interesting explanation of some good science. It is not easy to explain physics and astronomy, but the hon. Gentleman showed tonight that they are not beyond popular comprehension. He presented the subject with some seriousness, spiced with wit, and made a marvellous speech to get science debated in the Chamber and, perhaps, outside it, more urgently than it has been in the past.
I am more than willing to give the hon. Gentleman the commitments that he sought tonight. First, I will take the subject seriously, because we should, and secondly, I will follow up the matter with my colleague Lord Sainsbury who, as Minister for Science, is responsible for space matters at the Department of Trade and Industry. I should be happy to have meetings with the hon. Gentleman, the people at Armagh and officials to take the debate further. I would also be more than happy to find the time to visit the Armagh observatory, which is funded by the Government through the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC. I take every opportunity to visit Northern Ireland for family reasons and I should like to visit the observatory and see some of the work that it does.
In recent weeks, we have discussed biotechnology and we now have the ability to observe activity at the cellular level, deep inside. We have also developed our capacity to reach far out into the universe and we should not ignore what we find. Indeed, we should try to deepen our understanding. Many of us enjoy the sight of a shower of shooting stars on a clear spring night and the brilliance of a comet against a summer's day. Indeed, astronomy brings many youngsters into science. However, within the beauty of the universe there lurk unseen dangers. The, dangers that we see, we should take seriously.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, dangers exist and threats come from things that are prosaically known as near-Earth objects. Part of my job as a Minister is to steer a course between the panic of the immediate moment and deep complacency. Somewhere between those two parameters, we should take the matter seriously. I wish to make it clear that the chances of the Earth being hit by any large near-Earth object during our lifetime is remote, but that is not an excuse and such events have happened in the past. Over geological time, it is probable, if not statistically certain, that similar events will occur again.
The hon. Gentleman outlined the two principal types of near-Earth objects, comets and asteroids, which are some of the ancient remains of the earliest years of the formation of our solar system, more than 4 billion years ago. Asteroids pass very close to the Earth's orbit around the sun and there is evidence that some have hit the Earth in the past. Most of them, the smaller space debris called meteors, are too small to survive the rapid passage through the atmosphere and burn up with the trail of light that we know as shooting stars. However, larger asteroids have occasionally crashed to Earth, creating craters and the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them. It is clear that the Earth, with other planets and moons in the solar system, has been pelted, over geological time, by asteroids ever since its formation.
Scientists estimate that there are currently some 2,000 near-Earth objects of more than half a mile in diameter. On average, an object of those dimensions may be expected to hit the Earth only once in 100,000 years. Others have expressed that risk as being one chance in 25,000 that the average individual would be killed in an asteroid collision. That is not much higher than the risk of being killed in an aircraft collision, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The reason for that is that although near-Earth objects impact rarely, they could have a large effect on our globe, its environment and people. The frequency of impacts is far lower than that of aircraft accidents.
I am grateful to NASA for some of the information that I have managed to glean. NASA states:
Such global catastrophes are qualitatively different from other, more common, hazards that we face daily, given that these common events occur much more frequently but affect fewer people. No individual person should worry about being struck by a comet or asteroid. The daily threat to an average person from disease, car accidents, home accidents and from other natural disasters is much higher.
We recognise that, as NASA puts it,
the Earth orbits the Sun in a sort of cosmic shooting gallery … it is only recently that we have come to appreciate that impacts by NEOs pose a significant hazard to life and property".
It is necessary, therefore, to ask what we should do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested.
NASA states:
It is entirely feasible that we could divert a large asteroid or comet from its orbit using existing technologies. The potential response depends on the lead time. If we can predict the event long in advance, by at least 10 to 100 years, then conventional rockets and explosives would probably be adequate, even for bodies as large as a half-mile.
In a sense, the suggestions in the film referred to by the hon. Gentleman are not as way-out and wild-eyed as people might suggest.
I cannot respond in great detail to the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the Spaceguard project, but I understand that it involves certain groups monitoring asteroids. The Spaceguard Foundation was set up in 1996 by astronomers in a working group of the International Astronomical Union to promote and co-ordinate activities for the discovery, pursuit and orbital calculation of NEOs at an international level, to promote studies of their physical and mineralogical characteristics, and to promote a ground network, for discovery observations, and for astrometric and physical follow-up.
Spaceguard UK complements the Spaceguard Foundation but with a national emphasis. The Government's British National Space Centre held a


meeting with interested parties, including Spaceguard UK, and has since been in contact—close contact, I hope—with Spaceguard. The Government are sympathetic to the aims of the project, and Government-funded work is contributing to all the aims, both nationally and through international co-operation.
The UK Schmidt telescope based at the Anglo-Australian observatory at Silent Springs mountain in Australia has been taking large-format glass-plate photographs of the night sky for 25 to 30 years. The photographs are stored in the Schmidt plate archive at the royal observatory at Edinburgh and are an ideal database for follow-up work on detected asteroids that can improve orbit calculations. There is a continuing programme to digitise the photographs and to make the data easily available on the internet to astronomers worldwide.
To understand better the trajectory and possible threat of asteroids, research is needed into asteroids themselves. The key matters to be understood are the materials, their shape and their structure. Data may be obtained by looking at the distribution and variation of infra-red spectra.
The UK infra-red telescope on Hawaii has been extensively used to study asteroids. Additional studies will continue with the new 8 m Gemini telescopes. The UK is contributing to that £110 million project, and twin instruments are located in Hawaii and Chile. They are at the cutting edge of technology, and they will allow British astronomers to be at the forefront of most areas of ground-based astronomy, including asteroid studies.
We are also funding our share of the mission and instruments for the European Space Agency's important Rosetta mission, the third cornerstone mission in the Horizon 2000 programme. Those instruments will study the detailed composition of the comet Wirtanen by landing on it and taking samples.
The European Space Agency is mounting a study to produce a system for the co-ordination of worldwide capacity in NEO research, and it plans to run a pilot project to demonstrate the operation of a system to co-ordinate observations and communicate results.
The British National Space Centre is participating in work aimed at keeping near-Earth space as free as possible of man-made space debris and at tracking debris once it is identified. That information provides input to collision calculations that enables orbit changes to protect systems such as ERS-1 and ERS-2. Key groups involved include those at Queen's university, Belfast, and Queen Mary's college, London.
The British National Space Centre is working with fellow members of the interagency debris co-ordination group to agree a procedure for the re-entry of risk objects. The group includes NASA, the European Space Agency and the Russian Space Agency, and it is collaborating on measurements of the debris environment and improvements in the prediction of re-entry events.
To consolidate the work of the International Astronomical Union, the European Space Agency, NASA and many others, an international workshop on monitoring programmes for asteroids and comets is planned this June in Italy. It is proposed that after that event, there will be a second United Nations meeting on the subject to build on the work and take it forward seriously at the highest international level.
I am grateful, as I hope are other hon. Members, to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject. I hope that the debate will be more widely read than by those who have been able to attend. The hon. Gentleman presented a piece of science rather brilliantly. I strongly agree that the issue has to be approached with the best international collaboration. I note carefully his proposal for a centre based at Armagh. My colleagues and I stand ready to discuss the matter further with him. Our understanding of this subject is developing. The Government welcome such positive input. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that the matter can be treated seriously. He dealt with the topic with the wit and flair that communicates the problem beyond a narrow band of interest. He has done something for the popular communication of science, for which I thank him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.